Can a grammar school headteacher make such a demand on 11+?

[averageparent]

A friend in another Borough told me that a grammar school headteacher has 'demanded' her to give assurance that her girl has not received any 11+ 'coaching', or the headteacher will not accept her girl into his grammar school even if her girl passes the 11+.

Can anyone tell me if a headteacher could make such a demand?
(So that I can pass on the information to my very stressed friend)

Many thanks.

As it is a selective grammer school I would suspect that the HT can ask what they like.

Think of it this way

If the daughter has been coached for the 11+ are they (her parents) also prepared to have her tutored for the next 5 years so that she can keep up with those that haven't been coached.

Although the HT isn't being altogether altruistic about this how will the daughter cope at grammer school if she has been coached?

I expect the head is fed up with the number of children being coached from the age of 7, at huge expense, whose parents can afford it, thus denying places to bright kids whose parents are not rich.

Said children cannot cope once they are in the school and it makes life hard for them, for the teachers, and the other children.

OTOH, the whole coaching thing has got so out of hand now, that it is almost considered essential.

I doubt that a state school could make such a demand; they have to abide by whatever their admissions criteria are.

I suspect most children who go to grammar school now are coached.

Under what circumstances was this allegedly said? Are the grammars doing their open days now?
Was it a joke? And informal jokey comment made in response to the mad spiralling of tutoring?
The Governors are generally the Admissions Authority for the school (or the LA) not the Head.
And
are polygraphs now to be introduced as part of the admissions process, I wonder, or will 'most tutored' be replaced by 'best liar'?

average of course the HT can't 'demand' this nor can I imagine any streetwise HT of any decent grammar saying any such thing. However much they might like to.

St. Paul's Girls' School has a fabulous clause in its application form which requires 'a detailed disclosure drawing particular attention to any private tutoring which your daughter has had'. But state grammars have to abide by the Admissions Code which excludes consideration of matters which could be held to introduce subjectivity into the process.

Interesting about St Paul's, Yellowtip.

Our brilliant local prep has much longer days than our state primary. The teaching is outstanding, class sizes are capped at 16. Our primary is also a very good school but having been in the classrooms of both schools on a fairly regular basis in the past I can see the incredible advantage the children at the prep get over our children at the primary.

The differences were staggering to me at first. Classes (at the Prep) had classrooms where the desks formed a horseshoe pattern, all children facing the teacher. There was nowhere to hide. Children were engaged at all times and you could have heard a pin drop. Time was set aside for collaboration and group tasks etc and children moved to another area for this sort of work. Children had a great deal of individual attention and time with the teacher. Weaknesses were ironed out early on.

Children in this (non selective) Prep I mention by and large go to the local Grammar school. A few go on to independent schools. Are these children at the Prep school not receiving 'tutoring' each and every single day? Are they not developing their intellect and working to capacity? By 11 they will have had 6 or 7 years worth of many hours of extra help and work that takes them way beyond the national curriculum & develops their curiosity and stretches them sideways.

Compare this to my son's school. It's a typical primary, they get good results and the children work well. Go into class and you'll hear a lot of noise. They'll be low level disruption and some monkeying around. Some children sit with their back to the teacher. She does the best she can and she's an excellent teacher. She has 30 in her class. Very few make it to the Grammar.

I read in the paper about the super selective Grammar near Sevenoaks, I believe. A mother was getting a hard time because she was tutoring her child for 2 HOURS each week for the 11 plus, that's 2 HOURS each week NOT each day. Surely this is but a drop in the ocean in terms of extra help? What can you really accomplish in 2 hours a week for a short period? Would St Paul's think a child like this was over-tutored? Would they think a child at the Prep just an ordinary child, who had received no help outside of school and therefore more deserving of a place?

Back to OP the headmaster's comment sounds very strange if meant seriously. As I see it if a child passes an exam to a school they deserve the place. Exams are not about regurgitating facts these days, you have to apply your knowledge and if you can do this accurately you deserve an academic place IMHO. Apparently scores at 11 can't be used to predict GCSE grades anyway. The system is, of course, skewed in favour of those at Prep schools such as the one I describe etc.

Does the Head also ask who has been to Prep school?

It sounds to me like he is introducing his own personal biases and selection criteria to the admision process. Not sure the LEA will be happy about this.

I can't see how you can define coaching.
No one here would enter the 11+ without at least doing a fair few practice papers and all parents are going to point out errors and help correct them.

@ cortina:

'1. Has your daughter received private coaching and in which subjects?
2. If yes, then for how many hours per week and for how long?
3. What were the reasons for tutoring?'

Obviously SPGS will have an absolute handle on the quality of the primary schools.

'Incomplete information may prejudice a candidate's chances of being considered properly at the decision stage'

Love it.

@ Yellowtip - what do you think St Pauls' reasons are? Have they found that children who have received tutoring go on to under-perform at the school?

As a prospective parent I'd want to be answer the questions honestly but would be scared I'd be penalised if I'd been tutoring?

How many parents would admit to tutoring I wonder? This seemingly peculiarly English attitude of 'you can't get out what God didn't put in' does puzzle me. It seems very few believe intellect can grow through practice.

St Paul's say a) they want to identify natural ability and potential and b) they want to identify over prepared candidates who may perform well in the assessments but who are unable to sustain the required pace when they join the school.

Very fair and very sensible.

UCS apparently ask boys the same question ie have you been tutored. They take the view that it's acceptable for a boy who's been at state primary to have had tutoring to cover the ground that a private school might have already covered, but they take a dim view of a boy who's been to prep having tutoring as this shouldn't be necessary. Seems sensible as at St Paul's.
But a state grammar won't have discretion over admissions, it's all in its criteria. Whereas a private school can take someone with lower scores if they think for whatever reason they show more potential.
I don't know where having an educated sahp drilling away each evening fits in with all this.

You give me a child with average intellect and given lots of time and practice, I believe they can display 'natural ability' and flair to all intents and purposes. It interests me, this subject :). What do we mean when we say a child has 'natural ability' - a sense of logic? (A sense of logic seems to carry very high status.) An ability to do well in a test? A child can just sit at a piano and play a concerto etc? It's not a popular opinion but I believe 'ability' can be nurtured and developed. A minor intellect can become a major genius and all that sort of thing.

How can an 'over prepared' child without 'natural ability' (if we believe that's innate and either present or absent) truly shine in an entrance test? What are they relying on, memory? That won't get them far. They might be able to memorise a few stock phrases to inject into a essay etc but they need to apply the knowledge and do it at speed. If they can do that then do they not have an intellect that's worthy of further development?

Also a child with all the potential in the world won't do well if they're not self-motivated and disciplined. They might try to gauge that at interview though and from previous school. Surely the interview should weed out those that the school might believe to be 'over prepared' that or an entry test combined with CAT or IQ test (not that I'm a fan).

The style of 11 plus papers mean you have to do some coaching or pretty much any child is going to struggle to pass. Ds2 is supposedly the sort of child who should be fine at grammar but he is struggling with the practice questions because they're so different to what he's used to (and include topics that aren't covered until year 6 - the exam is 2 weeks into year 6). We're not paying for tutoring but I'm certainly doing lots of practice questions with him.

I'm not completely convinced it's right for him tbh but he says he want to apply so I've said I'll help him practice. But honestly the vast majority who are comfortable at grammar and go on to get good exam results woukd not pass the eleven plus without some practice at the type of questions before the exam.

An educated parent can clearly tutor his own child as much as he wants without their being an onus to declare it on the form. If that same parent then tutors another child to any extent then the parent of that child will be bound to declare it.

Schools who ask these question are simply trying to flesh out the background of each child but there must come a point where questions would be regarded as overly intrusive.

As things stand, state schools can't ask any of these questions at all.

without there being an onus!

@ Yellowtip - good point, why is 'private coaching' superior & more advantageous than tutoring your own child? It's possible a parent could be far more qualified than a 'private coach'?

Cortina "It's not a popular opinion but I believe 'ability' can be nurtured and developed."
I am also of this opinion. Indeed i would say with any individual child it is impossible to say how much of their ability is genetic and how much is acquired. Even IQ could be improved by education.

All that can be tested is whether or not a child has the ability to pass or not.

One third of children admitted to the nearest boys grammar school to us came from independent schools. This obviously doesn't reflect the local community at all. The parents have effectively bought a place at grammar for their child to the disadvantage of children from less wealthy backgrounds.

Ah grammar schools, that great leg-up for the bright working class child, hey Coolascucumber...

Yes, the majority are tutored. The others are coached by parents. Then there are (very) few who do neither and still pass.
Polly you're right

Topical: I was just so relieved that all the hard work paid off for him

Interesting link - so English paper - 11 plus - for Westcliff is as tough as A level English, really?

Why then doesn't Westcliff get better GCSE and A level results? I'm confused.

20 extra hours of tuition a week for a 10 year old is child cruelty IMO.