Tutoring for 11+ or not?

[MacaroonMama]

Hi All,

First post on this board so apologies if it should be on another board.

DS1 is just 9, in Y4 of a SE London C of E all-through school. He is exceptionally bright (from teachers not just me being doting mum!) Also I am a secondary teacher (on extended mat leave) and can see how he is way ahead in many subject areas.

So anyway, we are thinking of applying to a grammar school, probably just one as otherwise distance will be too much (no car). Just wondered if we should tutor or not? I think we should go through some past papers to familiarise him with the style of test, but surely if he needs masses of coaching, he shouldn't really be thinking of grammar school?

Any thoughts? DH and I both went to (and have taught in) comprehensives so we are unfamiliar with the system.

Thanks for any suggestions

blueshoes That is why I suggested doing those IQ puzzles, which my DD said helped her to develop the lateral thinking dexterity to tackle the harder questions on the papers, and she sat and passed the exams for the most selective private schools in the country (and as a dyslexic she has the obvious tendency to misread the question properly). In fact that some of the best selective schools do end up with the same proportion of pupils with SpLDs as you would expect (10% of the population at every level of ability) is testament to them testing ability over attainment though whether some include SPAG hurdles because they are not committed to providing the support is another matter

Some of those questions do stump an adult as well but that is because they are designed to test raw ability not accumulated knowledge / technique.

I really do not understand why parents are so determined to ignore the advice of the schools which is that the best preparation is to encourage your child to read and to explore educational opportunities, to inspire and to encourage their curiosity and then tailor the preparation to the requirements of the test /exam. Instead preferring to give in to the hype and angst and have them sat around some tutors kitchen table or in a classroom doing endless repetitive boring practise papers designed to cram them full of knowledge and "technique" so that by the time of the exams they are so pressured and outright bored and tired of it. The tutoring racket industry is a commercial enterprise, it works to create a customer need that its product will fulfill. It is a shame that parental angst and clever marketing combine to drown out the fact that the schools are actively working to null the effect of that product......

Just on the St Olaves standard.... from our school it was the boys who got scholarship offers and Top 180 who got in.

I don't believe any of them were tutored - they were just super bright. So tutoring could possibly help with exam technique, but ultimately I think the Olaves process was pretty good at finding natural ability.

If you are both teachers and your son is super bright then it should be achievable?

The Bexley grammars are also worth a look - you'd be in catchment for some of them, and the entry hurdle is lower?

whatwould, I don't think all tutors are the exam factories you make it out to be. I have used 2 different tutors for both my dcs. The tutors are pretty laid back, as are my dcs. It is possible to use tutors without the frantic cramming you describe. That is a bit of an exaggeration, at least in my world.

It is not necessary to start years before. A bit of light tutoring or parental guidance before to home technique and polish up is sufficient. I don't have time or teaching ability and cannot be bothered to scour websites and test papers. Frankly my dcs moan less with a tutor. There is a market for tutors. And I don't believe in cramming a child to only just about get in if their natural ability was not already there.

However, for grammars, it is a multiple choice and every point counts. The ferocity of the competition depends on whether it is a high birth rate year.

My dcs still benefited from the lift they got from the tutors in their normal academics. Therefore, the tutoring helps to get the Matthew effect going. Once again, I speak as a parent who does not have time to helicopter my children and is happy to pay experts to do the job of tutoring.

blueshoes As I said I don’t have a problem with finding the right support to prepare your child for the exact requirements of the test according to their individual needs but you are naive if you think that the tutors and prep schools in all parts of London, certainly in Bromley to my knowledge, are not from the part of the industry that do exploit parental anxiety and deliberately promote the idea that they have a monopoly on the supposed inside tricks of how to get into these schools, or that many parents are falling for it and putting their children through in some cases years of an unnecessary and expensive experience that is actually a highly lucrative and easy to deliver commodity product for the tutors and often actually negative in terms of their education and development.

I'm not in Bromley but the other side of London is pretty bonkers as regards schools and tutoring too.

DD sat for one independent school and one super-selective grammar. We don't know about the grammar yet but she got into the independent (widely considered to be one of the hardest of all). She had around six months worth of tutoring (with 8 weeks gap for the summer holidays in the middle) and I asked the tutor to concentrate on exam technique and working at speed as DD had no experience of being in an exam situation. The only reason I did not do it myself was that I could see it being a battle to actually get her to do it, whereas she actually quite enjoyed the sessions with the tutor who was a really lovely woman, very kind, encouraging and gentle (unlike me).

whatwould why is it a problem if tutors take payment for an easy to deliver commodity product. I would not want to do it. I don't have the patience to sit for an hour with my child in a power struggle. A tutor in Bromley may dress it up in a great mystique to make it seem essential to use their services but they are only as good as the students they get through. There are only so many places and they have to work with the raw material and there is a limit how far a child can or will be prepared to be pushed or be polished up to.

Are Bromley parents really so sheep-like - I am not so far away in a neighbouring Borough. If I spent 2 years on a tutor intensely coaching my child to get into a grammar school and they did not, erm, I am not going to use that tutor for my next child. Ultimately, the tutor must deliver results and there only so many children of that calibre and places at grammar school. Tutors get £30-35 an hour per child - it is not the easiest money, I don't think. Parents don't have to be sucked in.

blueshoes which is why many of them test potential students. My argument is that many of the children who parents send to these top secret tutors with supposed amazing powers for years would have got in anyway with more tailored and inspiring support. The tutoring industry and parental angst have made it into an arms race, and parental pressure has got Prep Schools doing it too.

I don't think we are really arguing, or at least I am not arguing with your choices. I was simply pointing out that parents should think about what is actually required for their child and the actual requirements of the tests and listen to the schools over the tutoring industry rather than falling into the trap of listening to the Chinese whispers in the playground. Try searching Mrs W on here, for how many parents do fall sheeplike for it all..........

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/1341101-Tiffins-11-tutors

" The tutor must deliver results" - you do realise these are children so they cannot guarantee anything. Even the best teachers in the land couldn't.Many aren't even teachers,anybody could set up a tutoring business tomorrow. I'm staggered at the MN naivety and obsession with tutoring.

Our state school DS had 4 tutor sessions before an exam for a top independent, and they comprised of being told exactly the same things I'd been telling him, only from someone he was more likely to listen to...

In that respect, tutoring was useful, but as long as they're able there's nothing you can't teach a kid about taking exams from about a month before, not two years, going through half-a-dozen past papers and consistently reinforcing the importance of the clock. Agree with whatwouldrondo that much tutoring is a racket, and over-tutoring could ramp up pressure on what are, after all children, and be counter-productive.

He got in, by the way, but would have been fine if he hadn't.

whatwould, the link you posted on Tiffin is about parents wanting to use the magical tutor, not the tutor putting pressure on parents to use her, who in fact was retiring with no vacancies. There is no tutoring racket, just lots of anxious parents wanting to steal a march. They are less relaxed than DIY parents. They think they are buying some edge in using tutors. So what - there is no moral superiority in growing your own.

I read a post by legallady, which is spot on in terms of what I think of tutoring:

"It never ceases to amaze me how intolerant some people on MN are of other people's choices.

How about people using tutors because they don't feel confident about being the best person to help their child? Who but the parent is best placed to make that decision? How about using a tutor because you don't want preparing for an exam to become an issue between parent and child - in effect keeping any stress out of the family relationship.

There are all sorts of reasons for using a tutor or not. Why can't people accept that it's individual choice and leave it at that confused.

I agree that there is a significant amount of hype about certain tutors and it is a shame that some parents feel coerced into using a tutor as a result of that hype. However, some of us are not naive about the process and still prefer to use a tutor. I would never criticise someone for "going it alone" and wonder why others chose to criticize those who make a different choice."

bluestars As I said I am not criticising your choices but if you think the Mrs's Walsh didn't have a big money making racket business which traded on secrecy and mystique and helped build up a ridiculous arms race amongst parents that had little to do with the requirements of the Tiffin exam then you are being naive. For most of Mrs W's career that was just VR and NVR and I have already covered why bright children score highly on those tests without needing more than a few practise papers, she even published her own reasoning practise papers for the rest of the tutoring industry to use given that Ed Psychs and schools were so unforthcoming with the sheer volume of practise papers needed to sustain all that practise. Clearly they could not have any basis in the actual professional psychological assessment expertise that schools and other organisations use to develop the tests given that was in part aimed at making them unpredictable and untutorable.

Lots of posts on that same thread too from parents saying that they drew back from the brink of the tutoring factories when they a. realised what the experience would be for the child and b. gained the confidence to dismiss all the hype and prepare their child appropriately.

You are criticising what seems to be a small minority of tutors and giving those tutors more credit for creating an arms race than is warranted.

Let's assume Mrs W is all the things you say (caveat: I don't know who Mrs W is) and is guilty of cynical exploitation of parental anxiety in a tutoring "racket". Only a few parents would actually fall for that hype - the ones who were anxious anyway. This sort of big sell puts off a lot of regular parents. Why do you care if some parents decide to use Mrs W for inside track or whatever reasons? Parents can see the froth and decide whether and for how long to use Mrs W if at all.

As you yourself admitted in your post.

I have a stepson, stepdaughter and a (younger) daughter. My stepchildren's mother hired a tutor - no consultation with their Dad - on the grounds everybody did it.

My stepson passed the entrance exams, but was unhappy at grammar school and didn't stay to to his A-levels. (The pastoral care was rubbish and they had a very one size fits all approach to personal developments.)

My stepdaughter did not gain a grammar school place. The tutoring improved her maths slightly but overall her confidence was knocked by the 11+ process.

We did not have my daughter tutored. She wanted to take grammar school entrance and we bought a few books of test papers - as the school recommended - but didn't push her to work through these, as we'd said that to our way of thinking it wasn't a big deal one way or the other. She was offered a place and her experience of the school was positive.

Make of this what you will.

My personal view was that coaching for an exam is not education. Children already take tests/timed assessments at primary school Also when the exam setters are keen to make an exam that can't be coached for, coaching is more about exploitation of parental anxiety.

I'd be prepared to invest time, energy - even money - in education. But not in exploitation.

I found that my daughters state primary hadn't taught her some of the things for the eleven plus. So I had to do books with her to give her a level playing field with the private school kids.

blueshoes Even on this thread there have been a significant number who have come on to say that you don't stand a chance unless you have a tutor, that they know the inside "tricks" and "techniques". Have you read the thread? Certainly of the 2000 who sit Tiffin a very large proportion will have been to similar tutoring factories to the Walshes, certainly more than half of those that I have known sit it amongst my DDs peers, friends, neighbours and the wider community. There is a lot of secrecy around it all, parents are loathe to be open about it. I know of one parent whose son was sitting for a selective boarding school with a friend who went back to their local Prep for something they had forgotten to find the friend being tutored by their teacher, with the friend having been sworn to secrecy by teacher and parent. (They got in, the friend did not).

There have in fact been more who have come here to imply that those who get in to these schools without extensive tutoring are a tiny minority, or even lying. I am quite sure that the schools work very hard to find the brightest rather than those who are heavily tutored. Again from experience the brightest get to these schools without it. The divisiveness, which you seem to be also embracing, is a symptom of just how crazy it all is.

You may not have read the thread and not appreciate I don't have a problem with using a tutor to plug the gaps in your child's preparation, to cover parts of the curriculum they haven't reached, to help them with timing and exam technique and to do a few reasoning practise papers if for whatever reason you choose not to do that yourself . I made that choice myself for a term. However I will continue to call out all those who say you have to tutor to stand a chance. As I say upthread anyone who comes up with the "you have to tutor because everyone else does it" argument would not do well in a test of critical thinking.....

Whatwould, some grammars are (much) more competitive than others. I live in a grammar area and there are some grammar schools I will consider and others I don't really care for. My children passed the grammar tests of 2 boroughs convincingly except for St Olaves' own personalised test. I would be in the camp of you need tutoring for St Olaves because every point counts, which is my opinion based on my experience.

On the point of critical thinking, I doubt even you would claim to speak for all grammar schools.

It is funny how the dc of parents who say coached their own children with test papers all somehow managed to get into the grammar schools. What if the child did not, as I am sure statistically must happen. Would those parents be singing the same tune on this thread?

This is pure anecdote as we didn't do the whole grammar route, but there's one super selective we could have gone for. A friend's son took the test and knew 5 friends who also sat. Three of the 6 had been privately tutored for over a year, the other three (including him) weren't tutored, but their parents bought a few books and showed them a few papers. Guess which 3 got in..?! The kids were spread across two primaries and I don't know their academic potential at all,, but my friend says the two that got in from her DS's primary are on a level with her son, but from all she's seen at school/ been told, they're certainly no brighter.

Also, nice dad on our road has two kids who got in. He wasn't very into it all, but his wife was (they're separated). They paid for tutors for 2 years and both kids got in. He says he feels pretty sure they wouldn't have got in without all of the exam practice they did. He's not at all sure that his son's in the right school, as he thinks he feels a bit stupid there as he's fine, but not flying and he's struggled to find friends, has no local mates, etc. Also, they have to travel a fair way to get there. So I reckon, think carefully. How will your son feel if he takes it and fails? Also, if you have good local schools, there are an awful lot of pluses in that.

I should say upfront that none of my DS's are at grammar and nor did we apply, so have no vested interest.

I do think that there is an undercurrent of "it's not fair" with respect to tutoring and that's why it brings out so many strong emotions. I've heard many many parents over the years say that "little John/Jessica was tutored to within an inch of his/her life to get in" with the additional either explicit or inferred adjunct that the child in question is taking up the place of a "naturally bright" child.

There is a constant undercurrent of "naturally bright" children are "more deserving" of grammar school places than the "excessively prepared", despite there being no real definition of either of these descriptions.

My view is a simple one: ALL of these children who get into grammars are deserving of their places. Some will have got in without tutoring, (which I define as help with the subject matter irrespective of parent or paid professional) some will have had hours and hours of it. In the end, why does it matter? I'm not convinced of the argument that those who are tutored then "struggle when they are in the school".. that is anecdotal at best imo.

I think the trouble is that pretty much all this discussion is anecdotal. The research that has been done seems focused on areas which have retained the grammar/secondary modern system - where it seems clear that overall attainment is depressed by the existence of grammar schools.

It's also true - lots of anecdotal evidence from my daughter's school - that some children struggle at grammar school, who would not struggle to the same extent in a school with a wider range of ability.. There may be lots of reasons other than tutoring why the struggles take place. But I imagine the experience of struggling in one school - while you'd be regarded as dong quite well in another - is a painful one.

blueshoes I have close friends in South East and North London who describe a similar phenomenal arising from the admissions test for grammar schools. It has even developed around the grammar school in the small northern town I came from. Relatively recently there was no tutoring, now parents have the impression that if their child is not heavily tutored or at a private prep they don't stand a chance and since they do have good state comprehensives in nearby towns many who would have gravitated to a local selective don't bother. In fact in one case a friend's children by the first marriage sat the tests without tutoring and got in but ten years later they decided that they were not going to involve their equally bright child by the second marriage in all the admissions hysteria that has developed, and the increased competiveness within the school.

There is a lot of anecdote because obviously given all the secrecy and emotional angst it would be impossible to do any sort of survey of amount of tutoring a child has versus chances of success. However what is undeniable is that tutoring and the tutoring industry has mushroomed versus schools trying ever harder to test ability rather than cramming, and making that very clear to parents.

Harriet It is an irony that Tiffin is surrounded by outstanding comprehensives where the high attainers in top sets get excellent results, comparable to the Tiffins, but some parents just don't see beyond the fact that there are low attainers in the building as well.....

DS had just four tutoring sessions, purely for him to do a couple of past papers, get used to the format and have a quick look at any weak areas. Of four boys in his class who passed the 11+, two of the others had no tutoring and one had tutoring for about a year beforehand. There's just one boys and one girls grammar here so not sure how other fully grammar areas work. My personal belief is that if years of tutoring is needed for then to get in, they may very well struggle once they get there. But I don't think chucking a child in with no idea what to expect from the test's is fair either, hence me booking a few sessions for DS.

most people who sit the test will be being turored, either paid for or intensive input from parents. Only don't if you think he is bright enough to beat the others when he's starting from the disadvantage of having less preparation.

To be honest, I think the increasing amount of general tutoring is more of a concern than 11+ tutoring. Tutoring for the 11+ (which we are currently doing for my Y5 son) is specific, often time-limited, and to me makes sense - because state schools do not teach all the areas that will be covered by the test (Y6 maths, NVR etc). What I find more of a worry is the amount of general tutoring that goes on. At our (very good) state primary there are now a considerable number of children being tutored, from Reception right through to Year 6, for 'a bit of extra help' - nothing to do with 11+, which many of these children will not be taking. I find this much more pernicious - there seems to be a growing perception (no doubt fuelled by the tutoring industry) that 'normal' children at a good school won't make good progress without additional paid tuition. This seems to me to put huge pressure on both parents and kids.

We're working class with no bells and whistles, we didn't tutor, we caould't afford it. DC still passed the 11+ with flying colours; enough to get into a super selective. We did do Bond book from May before the 11+, so a few months practice. We did 20 minutes 3 x week, sometimes less. I'm not academic at all. What I did do was give rewards for certain marks within practice. Rewards being if DC had 20 minutes practice but scored 90% you could stop without completing the full 20 minutes. If it was a 40 minute test paper and it was completed in time with a high % DC got a day off practice. This was motivation enough for DC to do his best. That's all we asked, do your best, check your work. Any questions that were wrong we worked together to understand them as I didn't have a clue how to do most of them. Then I got him to explain to me how to answer certain question to make sure he understood (even if I still didn't). Our whole approach was very relaxed with no stress. It was all about the challenge of the question and making it fun. With regards to outcome of the test I expressed the benefits of both sides and options of schools for both. I didn't press my wishes on him but he had his mind set for some time, he knew where he wanted to go. I told him he has to try his very best to have a chance. If you do your best and give it your best effort that's more than enough for me. So you don't have to Tutor, raw talent (not from my side) is sometimes enough, you just have to nurture it.