Very confused and befuddled Y5 mum here. My son is bright. He is top of his class at a very academic state primary - the best state primary in the area.
Because of where we live he can take tests for a local superselective school, or go out of borough and take the Bexley and Kent grammar tests.
We've not done any tutoring mostly because I went to a grammar (the girls version of the local superselective) and back then you just rolled up, took a test, and got in. NOW I have discovered that most kids have been tutored since Y4, many since Y3. They're having 3 hours a week sometimes. It's been eye-opening!
Naively, I assumed because my son is bright, he'd be able to do the tests without tutoring, but now - a bit late in the day considering the tests are all in September - I've realised that's probably not the case. He took a mock test a couple of weeks ago, did brilliantly in the English comprehension and terribly in the rest (he'd never done anything like those before, I guess, whereas reading a passage and answering questions on it is fairly straightforward). So we've started doing some practice papers and looking at the books but basically my question to you knowledgable people is, is it worth it?
Of the grammars, we've only seen the superselective school so far which he loved and I thought was shabby and uninspiring - brilliant for maths and science and very half-hearted for everything else. The local comps are good and perhaps because my expectations were lower, I was far more impressed with them.
So what would he get a grammar school that he wouldn't get anywhere else? He's a solid all-rounder. Good at most things, really, very sporty, inclined to be lazy if he thinks he can get away with it.
Are grammars worth the slog? If he's competing against kids who have been preparing for this for three years, is it a lost cause, even though he's top of the class? And AARGH have we done him a massive disservice by not tutoring him?!