Could any child get into SW London Grammars with tutoring?

[GeorgeSpeaks]

My child recently got a place at a grammar school in SW London. I'm very proud of her and she worked hard to pass the exams when none of her friends were sitting them

The thing that pisses me off is that when I tell people which school she has been allocated (I only mention when asked) they always ask if she's been tutored. One even went as far as saying she hadn't put her kid in for the exam but they would have passed if she had.

Do any kids get places without tutoring? Our primary is a state and achieves below average results compared to others in the local authority. The tutoring was an hour a week plus a few past papers in the run up to the exam.

Am I wrong to feel pissed off at this attitude? I'm probably being over sensitive!

I wanted to add, that perhaps the way they prep for the 11+ is similar to how the state schools prep for the SATs in the last term. My dd's school had them do lots of mocks and the focus seemed to be all about the SATs from Jan year 6. They kept giving homework to prep for the SATs. My dd stopped doing the homework they gave, as the SATs were easier than 11+

I'd agree about the SATS being easy, hence why I'd say you need to be working above y6 level.

@SamPoodle123 Yes, I agree. I am sure preps have covered all the Y6 curriculum and children are well-prepared for exams as they will all be sitting them and will have the benefit of mocks and mock interviews etc. This is partly why I concentrated on exam prep rather than content for my daughter. I think just taking the exam is hard for a child coming from a state primary. Like you, after the end of the autumn term they were really taught no new content and were just doing SATs prep. I also advised my daughter not to bother with the homework as I did not feel it was helping her in any way and I didn't care about SATs. I didn't like the pressure either.

But prep school parents often say 'oh they are working a year/two years ahead'. I don't think this is true for all children even for the most academic preps. And I don't think (even if they are covering that curriculum) it can possibly be of any benefit to any but the very cleverest DC. And I'm not convinced it's helpful for the exams either, tbh. The exams cover, as you say, mainly up to the end of the Y6 curriculum. There might be questions based on the KS2 curriculum that are more complex but there is nothing at all from two whole years ahead. Any school doing that on their entrance exams is actively trying to exclude state school children and I don't believe any good school is doing that.

@GeorgeSpeaks Yes, SATs were easy for DD. But I don't think children need to be working above the Y6 level to get into very selective schools. I do think they need to be capable of doing so and I see that it's a difficult distinction to make. And a difficult call for a parent who hasn't got experience of the system. Like @HighRopes I only post about this because I do want parents to know that it might be possible for their children if that is what they want.

All preps I know of start doing 11+ mock exercise (atom iseb etc) during school time at yr5.

At state primary you are either playing or learning non 11+ related stuffs during school time. So for the state students that prepare for 11+ have to do those outside school hours. State school children are not necessary disadvantaged at intelligent level but rather on time allocation and commitment.

Information advantage on preps is more like on historical dataset and sample those school have (mainly for private selective schools) , so they have a better correlation on student level vs admmision chances, which can give better informed advice for application process to the fee paying parents. But such info advantage has been less and less important especially in London.

There’s no simplistic answer to what Preps do or don’t do, and the level kids are working at.

Some Preps are selective at 4+ or 7+ entry and have more able cohorts (even then there is a range) and many are not selective and have a range of abilities. They will mostly be set or grouped for Eng and Maths and the kids will be working at different levels and the curriculum being covered at different speeds. Some elements of Eng or Maths might be covered at a higher level to allow what state schools call ‘greater depth’ whilst others might not have been.

Preps are not confined by the National Curriculum, so some Maths techniques they don’t feel are as useful might be ignored and some of the grammar aspects of Eng might not be covered if they are seen as purely being for state school SATs which they won’t be doing.

In things like languages, they have often taught well beyond where state schools will be, having subject specialists and more time devoted to languages. But these don’t help students pass 11+. The other thing is huge sports provision meaning Prep kids often dominate sports teams when they get to senior level....although state kids who’ve played club sport can often be as good. Again, not useful for 11+, but parents pay for Prep school for more than 11+ and for a different schooling experience.

What they can do and will do is some 11+ exam prep, which state schools won’t. That will include some coverage or revision of curriculum topics, but vitally VR and NVR for many entrance exams. Preps which send kids to many different senior schools which include state grammars and independents are often prepping kids for a variety of styles of entrance exams. It can mean the prep isn’t that focused on particular skills and rather generic - which is why lots of Prep kids are also tutored by private tutors or parents too.

My kids are out the other end of it all now. Friends of mine, who were interested, educated and motivated parents sent their kids to a mix of private and state junior schools, with a view to selective seniors. The kids has different primary experiences but all got places at selective state or independent seniors. The state primary kids has some tutoring or parents did the work with them. Some of the Prep kids also had tutoring or parental work and some Prep kids just did what the school covered. They were all reasonably bright and that with the fact their parents were switched on and supported them, meant they got the places and we’re fine at senior level.

My kids went to Prep. They had a lovely experience, with a lot of running in the woods, heaps of sport and away matches, 3 languages including Latin, traditional teaching of English and Maths and a variety of brilliant and mediocre teaching. They entered senior school in a strong position and confident and positive. They had some maths tutoring outside school and I did some VR and NVR on top of what school did. If they had gone to the state school instead and had some tutoring and my input, I think they would have got into the senior school too.

Preps usually provide a different experience but they aren’t magically able to do something wildly different academically. They are a luxury, without a doubt. Bright kids from state schools who have interested parents who keep focused on how they are doing and who will put the time/money into prepping them themselves or using decent tutors (not so convinced about study centres with group work) have got a great chance.

I passed 11+ in the 1980s and there are still people who make comments about the school. I think some people are obsessed with it. I've had various people say they got in but decided not to go. That's unlikely tbh.

We had no tutoring in the 1980s but 10 out of the 90 came from my primary so perhaps they did some preparation.

We found the ones from private school struggled the most and got the worst grades. Presumably they had been pushed to pass 11+.

Lessons were quite boring and we used to go quickly. Not much chance to ask questions. So I don't believe the style of teaching suits everyone. We also had limited choice of subjects.

I think people are being ridiculous to say their child would have passed. How can they know? Unfortunately people seem to get jealous.

The thing that pisses me off is that when I tell people which school she has been allocated (I only mention when asked) they always ask if she's been tutored. One even went as far as saying she hadn't put her kid in for the exam but they would have passed if she had.

Ignore them. The majority of the children sitting Tiffin are tutored in some way which isn’t to negate their intelligence or effort. Exam technique is an important skill too and not an area of focus in state schools before year 6, which is too late for the Tiffin tests.

Particularly ignore the ‘well DC didn’t sit but would have passed if they had’ cobblers. It’s irrelevant. The parent made their choice, they should own it. Their comments make them sound insecure!

@LittleBearPad agree with most of what you say here. However, I think parents who say my child might of got if they had sat the test etc. aren't saying that because they are insecure - they are saying that because they don't want you to judge their child as not being as bright or that they don't care enought about their education etc.

Sadly people are far to judgy about this kind of thing.

I get why people want their children to go to grammar schools etc. but it does suck - as whether intentionally or not you are labeling children as bright or not bright at 11! And we all know that there a number of factors why children don't get a higher enough score to get into grammars and often it is nothing to do with intelligence..

they are saying that because they don't want you to judge their child as not being as bright or that they don't care enought about their education etc.

But that’s their insecurity. They wouldn’t care otherwise.

I guess it is - but is understandable - as they feel you are looking down your nose at them...

Again that’s their impression and unlikely to be the case.

Yes agree it works both ways to be fair which why op shouldn’t let it bother her..

My kids have all been through one of the top grammars in the country and they didn’t have any paid for tutoring for the exam but did do some practice papers at home. I was just too tight to pay!
I think unless a child has some kind of learning issue probably any could be tutored to pass the exam but the amount of tutoring needed would differ. The only barriers really are poverty and parent education level. If parents can’t afford tutors and are unable to help with prep themselves kids are unlikely to pass.
I also have had the experience of speaking to a parent who told me their child would have got into my kids school had they sat the exam. They were not one of the brightest kids and I doubted it but was happy not to burst the mums bubble.

Absolutely agree, it may be that the kid was not tutored by tutor but by..their mum lol

Also, by looking at what is in a " Sutton mocks" there is no way the school curiculum will be sufficient.

And many of those who already are at grammars are tutored all along the way

Determination and hard work surpasses the " brightness". Nothing comes out of nothing. Everything is a matter of attention and repetition. Memory is something that can be improved with excercise. IQ is a function that can be excercised and improved unless we talking about people and kids neurologically affected.

But even with preparation they won’t all pass.

In Kent and Bucks which are full grammar areas, many children are tutored and don’t pass the 11+ in order to get a standard selective place, never-mind a score high enough for the super-selectives. Of course they can’t all pass.

The same is true for grammars elsewhere and especially for the super selective ones where over 10 apply per place. The vast majority have done preparation with tutors or parents….and the majority don’t get a place.

Absolutely agree that practice, repetition and learning stuff like timing can be improved on. However, quite simply, there are too many children in relation to the places, so of course all those who are prepared won’t get in.

When parents who didn’t put their kids in for the exam suggest theirs woukd have got in, they often have little idea of how competitive it is in some areas. It’s just a knee jerk reaction to your DC having got something theirs haven’t….many can’t bear to think theirs couldn’t have had it too. If their children ask about why they aren’t going to the selective school, the parent probably tells the child and themselves, that IF they had wanted to go for it, they would have got in. Just smile and nod. You have nothing to prove….your child has got their place. Any comment about how hard your child worked is counter-productive, as people take it as a criticism of themselves or their child.

You’ll probably get the same after GCSE. Some parents whose kids haven’t done so well, will suggest yours have done well because of the school they went to, or some other reason, but rarely that their child didn’t work so hard.

The education and effort is never lost. Even if they didn't get to grammar it doesn't mean that they will not do more brilliantly at state school than those in grammar. My boy's dad was a poor performer in primary school.The secondary school teacher stirred his interest in science. He became a scientists and builds complex microscopes. Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future....

Sometimes it isn't just working hard/preparation, either. There are plenty of children for whom eg attaining the expected standard in SATs or getting a grade 5 at GCSE represents a significant effort and focus on their part (and their parents too maybe).

I know children like this. They may have tried very hard to do better than perhaps was expected and those skills will stand them in good stead later on as will the parental support if that was part of what made the difference. They might just not be suited to a school or college or sixth form or other education where academic attainment is the focus and where the pace may be faster and the expectations higher (and they would almost certainly be fairly miserable in such a setting if tutored/prepared like crazy to scrape in).

I am somewhat sceptical of the idea that children at grammars/other selectives are all tutored to keep up, tbh, though I guess some of those who were pushed hard to get in may need some extra help at times. My daughter is at a selective school which is considered to be difficult to get into and I don't know of a single child who has been tutored in anything.

Work hard might not be a virtue in this country, but shouldn't be something that ashamed of.

The worst is work hard while telling others you are not.

Not every kids need tutored or extra external help to keep up in those most selective schools. But it is not a secret that a handful of students use external help (tutor) for their GCSE and subject etc - this is across all the superselective school I know of in London.

The worst isn't to work hard and tell people you are not, actually, though I don't really understand why anyone would do that. The worst is not to bother to do your best. This entire thread is full of people whose children have done their best. You have a strange bee in your bonnet, @PreplexJ, about people whose children seemingly haven't done enough prep by your standards despite clearly having done enough to get to where they needed or wanted to be.

I bet those kids you know who need extra help when they are into the school their parents wanted for them are exactly those who were pushed too hard early on and ended up somewhere that maybe isn't the best fit. I don't know any like that but I am sure they exist.

@BonjourCrisette I don't know many kids haven't done enough prep by my standard get in some place they want to be (different standard for different place for sure). But I'm sure they exist.

>I am somewhat sceptical of the idea that children at grammars/other selectives are all tutored to keep up, tbh, though I guess some of those who were pushed hard to get in may need some extra help at times. My daughter is at a selective school which is considered to be difficult to get into and I don't know of a single child who has been tutored in anything.

Rarely parents openly talk about tutoring that their kids attend.

Rarely parents openly talk about tutoring that their kids attend.

So how do you know it's happening then?

The headmaster at Tiffin was clear that the exam would only test Maths and English from the y5 curriculum. You wouldn’t need any y6 curriculum knowledge.

But of course most boys out of the however many (1500 ish) that sit for Tiffin will be tutored and most will not get in! We know loads of bright, tutored boys that did not get in.