can you pass the eleven plus without tutoring? any experience.

[iamnotaprincess]

We have suddenly decided to enter ds for the eleven plus next Sept. He is a year 5 with level 5 in both maths and literacy and on target to get level 6. He is super geeky. Do you think we are setting him up for failure if we don't go down the tutoring route? I will get him to do a few papers in the summer, is that sufficient? Dp and myself are not British, so this whole thing a bit new. Honest answers appreciated.

Back in the day no-one had any tutoring and it didn't matter. Nowadays you put your child at a disadvantage by not doing it, as others who are less bright but better tutored might take your brighter child's place if you do not level the playing field.
Although, having said that, how does anyone know that all levels of tutoring are the same? One child might receive distinctly more than another, and another child might receive less, but better more focussed tutoring. So it is still not fair.
The only thing that would make it fair would be if no-one tutored, or if, as suggested, there was a test (like the Eton test) that you could not prepare for. Supposedly.

I would look at the actual school websites to find out what is in the tests and not just listen to possibly out of date advice.

One mum at school was shocked after her son took the Tiffin test that there were 80 questions in 50 minutes. It shouldn't be a surprise when it is stated clearly on the website.

You have had plenty of useful replies, but besides the expected standards in English and Maths, in some areas it is the 'verbal and non-verbal reasoning' papers that are hardest, because they are so different from anything normally encountered in an ordinary primary school.

So get all the info you can from the schools in your area, and then find practice papers to cover them.

As others said, read the questions carefully, and make sure you understand it and answer what they are asking. Relax and don't fret! (Pupil and parents!)

Thank you, lots of good advice. I will keep you posted and see if ds gets in.

This is my first post on here, so please forgive me for jumping in on an already established discussion but I would like to add that my DD failed her 11+ because we decided not to get tutoring for her. If we had she may well have passed. I dont know. Personally I think tutoring for 11+ is wrong as it hides real ability and puts children of less ability into a situation they may not be able to cope with, but equally now, our daughter has the ability and would do very well at a grammar and cant go. We are in the middle of an appeal. I didnt want to make an issue of the whole grammar school thing and we are only doing this because her current head feels very strongly that our girl needs to go to grammar rather than the local comp!(we have needed to be convinced!) I dont think the head has any hidden agendas here, but neither did I think my dd was anything other than average and maybe it was just because she is in a small school or something, I just dont know. I am confused by the whole thing, and just hope when it comes to our next child, we dont have to go through this again!

Dd did four practice papers of half an hour each and passed. I slid down the wall when we got the letter. Private tutoring is massive here !

What 11+ revision website do you suggest?

Thanks

Having done my fair share of admission appeals for local grammar schools when the priority seems to be not what the child wants but what the parent would like to be able to say about their child's capabilities, I do think that you are taking the right approach to this.
Concentrate on whether this is something your son wants firstly and then if they do, concentrate on them understanding what the tests entail and him having plenty of practice under exam type conditions.
Far to many pupils just manage to get to the 11+ standard with intensive tutoring but then find that they are really struggling if they go to the grammar school. If your son achieves the 11+ standard without intensive tutoring then there is a much more realistic chance that they will thrive in the grammar school environment.

I never had any tutoring, neither did husband or son and we all did well.
The school should be teaching most of what children need for 11+ and other things kids will pick up naturally at home and from out of school interests. The most important thing is for children to be articulate, confident and if something intrigues or inspires them, to be able to research it enthusiastically.

Does tutoring really help that much with 11+? I don't know anyone whose children have been tutored at that level but from what I've gleaned from the media, it doesn't prepare the children very well. They also feel pressurised.

It annoys me that so many schools don't do a better job in that respect, extra tuition should not be necessary.

The situation is very different to when we were the age to do 11+. People often say that back in the past they weren't prepared and passed, so tutoring or home preparation isn't needed, but it is all a lot more competitive now and the situation of 30 years ago isn't terribly relevant.

And regarding relying on primary schools - well they will have covered the NC to the end of Yr 5 stuff, but Yr 6 stuff can come up too, plus many test VR and NVR too which aren't covered and exam skills are not covered - and when people say schools should spend time on this stuff, they forget that s hooks are already hard pressed to cover the curriculum they have to cover and not everyone will sit the 11+ - tiny numbers in many areas, so it would be a waste of resources to devote time to it.

In the end, it's very competitive to get in. In super selective areas where there might be 10 or more applicants per place, being on top table for maths and English won't be enough for all the children in that situation to get in. Lots will score very highly and many will be very clever and the difference between a place and not getting a place might come down to having been drilled in timing or accuracy. Even in full grammar areas, lots of people want a grammar place and see preparation as the best way to give the best chance in what is a one-time opportunity.

I don't think paid for tutoring is necessary, but some form of familiarisation is - it can be done by parents using some books or a website (most parents have the ability to track down resources and deliver this - but some won't be able to do it) or a paid for tutor. It doesn't have to be months and months or years. The key is to be familiar with the different styles of questions that come up and to have practised timing - if your child has done those 2 things with a tutor or with a parent, they are familiarised and if they are clever, are in a position to show off their best. If they are clever, but have never seen the kind of questions that come up or have never done timed work, then they may well fall down by not finishing due to having to spend too long just getting to grips with what the questions mean and not having a clear enough sense of how fast they need to work to finish. They might be cleverer than someone else who has been familiarised and who pips them at the post just because they were able to finish or recognised the questions.

Few people would send their child into an exam with no idea of the kind of things that might come up or having done no practice of timing. Why would anyone do this with an exam which genuinely is a one time only opportunity, unless they are not bothered at all about the result?

Some people can't seem to see a middle ground between no preparation and cramming for years. There is a middle ground. It probably is true that if excessive cramming for years is necessary to squeak in, then it might be a struggle to keep up once at the school, but having had some preparation really isn't an indicator that a child isn't up to it - it really isn't. And when people say they didn't do any familiarisation at all because they were worried that their child then wouldn't cope if they got in, I have to say, I don't really believe that argument. I think the reality is that people say that when they simply haven't got their act together to either get some books or a website or a tutor. Anyone who has given 11+ some proper consideration and done some research into it quickly realises it is very competitive and even if cramming for months or having a tutor isn't necessary, some familiarisation is, and at doing nothing at all just isn't giving any child a best chance of a place.

The school should be teaching most of what children need for 11+

No, they don't. The 11+ is sat at the start of year 6, but is set at the level of teaching to the end of year 6, so basically you're tested on things that you've not yet done in class.

Re verbal reasoning, to pass, you need a really good vocabulary, which you won't get just by reading the standard school reading books as they're too easy/simplistic. You really need to read some children's classics at the very least, which for some reason, schools don't seem to promote/value.

Re English, the comprehension is pretty tough yet schools don't really do that much comprehension work and certainly not to the level required at the start of year 6.

Things really have changed in the past few decades and you simply can't compare how it used to be with how it is today. Firstly, "pass" marks are generally much higher - in my day it was 60-70% to "pass" but today in some super selective areas it can be 90-95%. Secondly, whilst the educational/academic standard of the 11+ is largely the same, the standard/extent of primary education is greatly reduced (although I believe they're now trying to ramp it up again), hence why tuition is pretty much essential these days - the gap between what the schools have taught by the end of year 5 and the 11+ standard is too great for the average child.

And when people say they didn't do any familiarisation at all because they were worried that their child then wouldn't cope if they got in, I have to say, I don't really believe that argument.

I don't believe the argument either. The work done at grammars isn't that different from the top sets/streams in comps. Both will be doing similar subjects at GCSE Higher level. From what I understand, there are two major differences. Firstly, grammars are more likely to offer "harder" subjects such as Latin, separate Sciences, Further Maths, etc but these are usually optional anyway so you're not forced to take them to GCSE. I also believe the choice/selection of GCSEs can be better at a grammar, i.e. you can take all three humanities or 2/3 foreign languages, not restricted to one of each. Secondly, anecdotally, I think grammars tend to push students to take more subjects than comps, maybe just 1 or 2 more, but again, optional in that the student can opt out if the workload is getting too much. Obviously schools are individual and some grammars will offer less choices such as some comps who offer more.

So, from what I've read/learned/experienced, the grammar generally gives the pupil the opportunity to do more and/or more academic subjects, but it's really their choice as to whether to grasp that opportunity.

A good friend of mine invigilates the 11+ at one of the Grammars here
She says that every year a small number of children turn over the paper and go to pieces due to lack of familiarity with the type of questions and exam technique. Even the brightest kids can panic when faced with something unfamiliar so even if tutoring isn’t deemed necessary then doing loads of practice papers is

I think the problem for lots of people lies with the idea of doing loads of preparation and practice.

Especially if you are in a full grammar area, I would think that as long as the child has had a chance to see al the styles of Qs and do some practice on them, and has had some chances to do timed work, you can send them into the exam feeling they have been familiarised. If they are clever, they should be able to show that with the preparation received.

The question becomes about doing 'loads of times papers' and what exactly that means - is that timed papers for months and months, is it working at questions for a couple of years? People will differ about this and perhaps in how desperate they are for their child to get into Grammar. For super selectives, it may well be that for the vast majority sitting who are bright but not amazing, loads of cramming might tip them in, whereas without it, others might scrape the place, when just a mark can make all the difference - people speak about cramming boosting accuracy and speed, which often make the difference when many score over 95%. However, I would say that for many other areas, and also for many families who are simply not prepared to cram for years on end, a familiarisation programme of looking at the styles of questions and doing a couple of timed papers is enough to feel they have been familiarised and are not being sent in blind. Many people are not comfortable with cramming and a bright child who has been properly familiarised should have a good chance of getting a place. The bright child who has not been familiarised has very little chance.

This is a zombie thread.

However, a child who went to my dd's primary school passed the entrance for the only grammar school in our city, when he was still 9 with no tutoring. He started a year younger than everyone else.

He must be ridiculously intelligent though.

Most children will need some form of tutoring either with a professional or parent.

The thread is 5 years old! If they got in, they'll be sitting GCSEs about now :o

I want to know now!

My children went to one of the top state primary schools in terms of achievement. Children from that school were accepted at St Paul's boys and girls, King's in Wimbledon, Latymer, Tiffin etc. Some got scholarships. There was a boy in their class who was a top performer within that very high achieving group. His mum did not believe in tutoring and so he sat the 11+ without. He was not accepted anywhere.

Lots of parentls blatantly lie about tutoring. I have seen it many times and my children are at state schools, so I have no vested interest. You can revise for any type of question and schools have no way to discern between tutored and untutored.