Has anybody successfully tutored for the 11+ completely by themselves(need reassurance)

[Blueskiesandbuttercups]

DS year 4 desperately wants to go but we can't afford tutoring.He is bright,driven and I was a teacher so in theory it shouldn't be too hard.

His friend is also going for it but they're well off so tutoring and have already started.Ds is nagging me to get started.

Sooo went on the 11+ forum typed in the school to order books and I'm already in a pickle.They cost £££££ so need to get it right. We like CPG but loads are listed we haven't heard off. Would it be ok to just go with Bond and CPG or should we go with exactly those listed?

Is it possible to do this ourselves or am I deluding myself? If I screw this up I'll feel like shit- forever! Need lots of reassurance.

breadandbutterfly
What happens when the parent is less intelligent than the child and was failed by education - how are THEY supposed to help their child to reach their potential - especially if they are working nights at the Tesco warehouse?

Talkin how many hours do you suppose that bread is talking about a week?

seeker stop ramping it up. Not all of those offered places are from dictionaried, knowledgeable, educated, confident, leisured, languid, timely, spatial and inclined families of yore (or middle class Kent).

Aren't they, yellowtip? Glad to hear it. I'd be delighted to have some evidence of that!

The evidence is there at the school my DC attend. Admittedly it's not in Kent, which obviously helps.

Yellowtip
sadly the statistics back seeker up on this : FSM and C2DE parents at selective schools are rarer than hens teeth - apart from possibly in Central London and a few schools that offer lots of financial scholarships.

And as for hours of tutoring : sorry but single mums with four kids ranging in age from 15 to 3 who work nights at the Tesco warehouse near here have NO hours to sit down with one of them and get them to look at stuff that the mother does not understand.

Talkin - I'm a bit confused by your post.

Kids from poor backgrounds don't get into non Central London selectives because the exam is biased against them.

However, kids from poor backgrounds do get into Central London selectives because of financial scholarships.

Hopefully you can see the reason for my confusion.

...which is that you seem to me making the case the poor kids can't get into state selectives because the exam is biased against them. Buy you then make the point that poor kids can past the exam at private selectives but can only take up the place if scholarships are made available.

Private schools offering scholarships/bursaries /whatever are allowed to take a candidate's background into consideration- state selective schools can't.

Talkinpeace

Using FSM to prove a point can be a bit of a red herring. Take for example, those who are unemployed - in most cases, only those on Income-Based Job Seeker's Allowance are eligible to apply - note that I mention "apply", as opposed "can get it". If you lose your job and you've been paying your tex, NI etc, then you only get Contributions'-Based and no entitlement to get FSM. You're still on the breadline but don't bolster up those lovely FSM figures people so love to bandy around.

So what does FSM show - ummmm - a variety of things but it doesn't necessarily mean dirt-poor, single mum with poor educational background and children who are being iced-out of GS. The benefit system can mean that just because you don't see high FSM, it doesn't mean that there aren't pupils whose parents are struggling financially to feed everyone. We are - DH lost his job and so did I but we've got a cat in Hell's chance of FSM, even though we have nothing. There's a lot of hidden people.

"And as for hours of tutoring : sorry but single mums with four kids ranging in age from 15 to 3 who work nights at the Tesco warehouse near here have NO hours to sit down with one of them and get them to look at stuff that the mother does not understand."

I was that child, although I had two parents who had very little education - my father could barely read through no fault of his own, having been hospitalised for 5 years and then left school at 14. He worked away all week and my mother often worked the twilight shift. I went to GS. So I understand that scenario only too well. However, what do you propose will happen to that same child you use an example, when they face GCSE's at secondary school or a good comp, if the home situation hasn't changed? And for argument's sake, let's assume they live in a comprehensive area.

"However, what do you propose will happen to that same child you use an example, when they face GCSE's at secondary school or a good comp, if the home situation hasn't changed? And for argument's sake, let's assume they live in a comprehensive area."

Presumably the school will be teaching them what they need to pass their GCSEs?

oh...and let's say, they live in a socially deprived area.

There is still a contradiction seeker. A child still needs to score relatively high to get a bursary. And if you are poor then you will need a 100% fees remission. In order to get a 'free' place that poor kid will need to score very high in order to attract such an offer.

The exams are either biased against poor kids or they aren't. If it is your assertion that they are then you shouldn't be going on about the really bright ones that get 100% fees remission.

FSM is an incredibly blunt tool for any meaningful analysis. In some of the poorest parts of the country (parts which get Objective 1 funding from the EU' take up of FSM is acknowledged as poor. This recent article describes but doesn't adequately explain the phenomenon www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/30-000-pupils-Devon-Cornwall-missing-free-school/story-18353746-detail/story.html#axzz2Ur0zNWvw

I don't know whether private school entry exams are biased against disadvantaged children or not. I do know that there is flexibility in the system, though- and not all financial assistance in private schools is based on getting super high marks in an exam. Mind you, the number of disadvantaged children in the private sector is pretty low- to put it mildly.

I do know that the state selective system is biased against disadvantaged children- and there is no flexibility.

And on the FSM point- yes, it can sometimes be less than clear cut. However, if you look at a selective school, and at the schools where children not "deemed selective" from the same area go, there is usually at least a 10% difference in FSM take up.

seeker

"Presumably the school will be teaching them what they need to pass their GCSEs?"

Don't you feel you'd be better off replacing that "presumably" with a "hopefully"? Afterall, not all comps/secondaries are good and not all GS pupils are MC with supportive and employed parents And you could use the same argument in a GS area, where English and Maths also form part of the 11+

Yet again, this has become a tiresome, anti-GS thread, where the OP originally started by asking if people had managed to home tutor successfully. If people (and not only those in GS areas) stop helping their children with homework, is that going to help the children (in useful ways) who need help because their social situation is disadvantaged? If the OP doesn't help their child, then how does that help to improve the GCSE outcome of the child used as an example? Are there possibly other areas, or facets of life in the UK that could be criticised and put under the microscope, to give that child a leg-up the ladder in so many ways and on so many levels, rather than banging on about tutoring, helping children with school work and GS?

I feel sad that there are still children like me living out there - I'm sad that having worked all his life, my DH can't get a bit of help. I want every child to have a good education and for social deprivation to be a thing of the past. However, it doesn't make me bitter because like a great many things in life, even with the best will in the world, I can't change it. It certainly doesn't make me want to no longer help my child with their work when they don't understand it. In what practical way would that help my child, or more importantly, the example child that TIP used?

OP, it can be done - I did it, I'm not a teacher an DD2 got a place at a fiercely competitive superselective. Have faith in yourself. My DD scored better than the local tutor's candidates (quite a lot of children didn't quite make the score needed). Tutors don't necessarily have magic wands and having spoken to another mum, it seems I was doing everything the tutor was doing and tbh, she said I actually provided more useful help.

Anyway, I shall leave you guys to it, as this thread has rather predictably gone the usual way and I always feel that repeating myself is wasted positive energy

OP, please feel free to PM me if you want advice.

seeker
And on the FSM point- yes, it can sometimes be less than clear cut. However, if you look at a selective school, and at the schools where children not "deemed selective" from the same area go, there is usually at least a 10% difference in FSM take up.

One final point, please do me (and the other parents who are unemployed) the courtesy of going and reading up on criteria for FSM, Income-Based and Contribution's-Based Job Seeker's Allowance. As Russians says, it's a blunt tool and not necessary reliable. Far too many little fishies fall through the net.

People have been giving the OP lots of helpful suggestions all along. There has been some side discussion about tutoring- which the OP has joined in with. How very odd that you see it as an anti grammar school thread.

I do understand about FSM entitlement. But I don't see how that would make it OK that very fe children on FSM get into state selective schools.

If financial assistance isn't based on high exam marks then what is it based on? I can't see some selective private school offering a 100% fees remission to some average performing student simply because he is disadvantaged. Just in case you haven't noticed, there is no shortage of disadvantaged average performing students out there.

seeker

"And on the FSM point- yes, it can sometimes be less than clear cut. However, if you look at a selective school, and at the schools where children not "deemed selective" from the same area go, there is usually at least a 10% difference in FSM take up."

"People have been giving the OP lots of helpful suggestions all along. There has been some side discussion about tutoring- which the OP has joined in with. How very odd that you see it as an anti grammar school thread.*

Odd? To each, his own and I would always fight for everyone's right to an opninion. But what has FSM and the low take-up in GS got to do with tutoring? Why does the comparison of FSM figures between GS and non-selective in the same area need to be mentioned. My dear seeker, are thou perchance hoisted by thine own petard?

Dammit. I just realised I helped seeker derail yet another thread. We are back to discussing the inequities of the 11+ system. D'oh! So with myself.

Not me. Honest. I just joined in once it was derailed.

From memory I think you started to derail it earlyish on seeker when you piped up with how parents helping their DC was just as much 'tutoring' as buying in one of these self-styled 'pros'. The implication of course was that was unfair to all socially disadvantaged kids everywhere.

Talkin I made no comment about FSMers which as others have commented is a very blunt tool. I said that there were many offered places from backgrounds which were not obviously dictionaried, knowledgeable, educated, confident, leisured, languid, spatial and inclined. In fact my own DC can't tick all of those boxes so I can't fathom how they got in. piggy makes the very good point that there are a lot of people struggling financially who nevertheless don't qualify for FSM. That's important and the FSM argument is a weak one always trotted out to gloss over the reality of the social make up of schools.

All the single mother/ Tesco stuff is so patronising it beggars belief. Why is Tesco always slung in?

Just checked, yellow- and I suppose you're right. In my defence, it was in response to a poster saying that her child wasn't tutored- and then detailing her programme of work with him, starting in year 4.........Which would be pretty terrifying to the average DIYer.

I didn't start the FSM/disadvantage stuff, though.

Actually, I can see why Tesco gets dragged in - where there's a really big tesco it tends to be a disproportionately big employer, because of all the PT jobs it creates. I know loads of people working very PT shifts at the brobdingnagian tesco over the road from DSs comp and DD2s primary. When DD1 started at the primary, when the tesco was less than half the size it is now, the main PT employer 'at the school gate' was the hospital. Now it seems to be tesco. The main full time employer continues to be the Uni though. :)

I don't think it's unreasonable to make the point that not all parents are in a position to home tutor effectively, even if they are really really clever. Some people have difficult lives, some people have jobs that are very demanding of time resources for whatever reason, some people have large families or DCs who aren't amenable to allowing their sibling to do quiet study....there are a host of reasons why some people might prefer to use tutors rather than do it themselves, it doesn't mean that the parents have persuaded themselves the tutor has magical qualities - it might just be the best practical solution.

We didn't have a tutor for Dd1 and nor did we 'home tutor'. We did however send her to a few practice sessions of mock 11+ exams with about 50 other kids from all over the place, some of them tutored by the people running the practice sessions, some of them not, so that she could acclimatize to what it would be like doing the exam (time issues, personal space issues (a Big Thing for dyspraxic people) etc. you did the test, it got marked. You were given the mark back. If there had been any issues we might I suppose have followed them up but the weren't so we didn't. The sessions were actually aimed at her second choice GS and based on the format of that 11+, which is different from the one at her first choice, but it was still, I think, a valuable experience for her. And it was the best practical thing we could do to prepare her.