Why would people be dishonest for 11+?

[Namechangefor11]

Living in London, we have observed that many parents are not honest about how much effort and time they invested in preparing their children for the 11+ exam. This is true even for those who have already gone through the process. What is their motive for lying? Why is this such a hostile environment? We cannot comprehend it.

Maybe they’re worried it makes their kid look not very bright if the only way they can pass/potentially pass is by being tutored up to the eyeballs?
I don’t know tbh - we’ve started tutoring for our son and I’m not hiding it from anyone 🤷‍♀️

It doesn't seem so hard to understand to me. While they're tutoring, they play it down or deny that they're tutoring to lure other families into a sense of complacency, so that the other children don't have high amounts of tutoring, which gives an advantage to their own dc. Plus some schools disapprove of high levels of tutoring (both primary/prep and secondary).

For afterwards, when the child has already got a place, I think it's about the aura of effortlessness, and wanting other families to believe that their child is simply inherently intelligent and so they 'deserve' the place more. Just like some slim women claim they eat loads and never work out, or they don't have any treatments done etc.

It's not something we ever really got into as we moved into catchment of a top comp, but we're in North London so we were definitely surrounded by it.

I don't think it's dishonest. They are downplaying how much effort they are making so their child doesn't look unacademic if they fail. It's more cultural to be pretend that you're not trying too hard or care too much imo.

We didn’t do the 11 plus, but threads on here show why you would want to underplay your prep. So much negative stuff is written about kids who only got in with tutoring, aren’t that bright, struggled later because they had a tutor, tutors are for the privileged etc. I can see why people don’t really want to admit to everyone that they used one.

And the other stuff about being secretive about the tutor so other kids do not get that get the advantage. It’s all basic competition.

It is a crying shame that we don’t have a properly resourced state system where teachers are valued and rewarded, and kids of all abilities can be nurtured and encouraged.

Blame the system for this nonsense, not the parents.

I think later on, parents chill out a bit. Parents at GCSE/A Level stage seem more happy to be open about tutors and share recommendations. We certainly didn’t hide it for our child.

Some people are really judgemental and expect children to pass without any help and act like you've cheated yet they are open about their child training for sports but don't see the irony.

Like others have said some people are competitive and do not want others doing well. Not everyone is like that though. I shared names of tutors we were recommended. I used one for my dd and now another for ds (he needs someone face to face and not group). I would have preferred the same for my dd, but only found out about face to face tutor after starting her in the group online. Both tutos are good. I was also open and happy to discuss what we did for 11+ I did explain for my dd, she is not the norm and I would recommend starting earlier (we would have, but did not realise she would do 11+ until end of year 5). I think starting Jan of year 5 is fine, or start of year 5 for some if you want to play it safe. But some start year 4. You can figure out by looking online different timelines of prep. It is also different if you are in private or state school, because obviously dc in state school will have more to cover, as they do not cover it in school.

This is spot on!

Probably you got the wrong illusion of tutoring. I once heard from someone saying most of the top school kids have tutors outside which is not true.

Tutors, paid or not, all require extra effort from DC and time is required for 11+. We know grandparents that were retired headteachers coaching and helping their grandkids. Others may call it enriching family time whilst some think that it should be call tutoring.
Tutoring does happen in secondary schools for DC to be placed in top Maths sets or Book clubs lead by a tutor covers the curriculum books to give class participation edge.
It happens and yes some folks are open and honest, some downplay or outright lie.
It is more open at GCSE and A levels because millions are sitting the same exams. So there is no need to hide but some still do by complaining DC are not studying and doing sport or art or lazing about knitting. Whilst DC complaining they doing 3 hours of study a day for over a year plus intensive revision courses over half terms and holidays.
In US, it seems to be a badge of distinction to state how many more hours their DC put in, plus cello/orchestra performances and soccer games, even though they mostly gaming on line or senseless Tik Tok scrolling.

I totally understand why you would want/need to tutor your child for the 11+ but gosh how depressing is it that primary age kids have to go through all that just to get into a good school :(

Everyone's covered the reasons mostly but to sum up:

1. Parents see other children as competition for their own child. Therefore they're not going to share resources because maybe the other child will do better than their own if they do.
2. People can get judgemental about tutoring. Your DC are seen as "average/not Grammar school material" if they are being tutored but the reality is that in some places, everyone is getting tutored so even if the ones who are genuinely clever might not get in over the ones who are. So even those who are capable get tutored.
3. Grammar schools themselves cause quite a debate. Just look at the threads here whenever it's mentioned.

Because the 11+ was supposed to be a "fair" system, testing children's natural ability from state primary age schooling and selecting the top whatever percentage for grammar schools.

If people send their children to prep schools or pay tutors to prep them they're taking places from children who are just as capable or more so, but don't have parents with money or time to train them for the exams, by putting the average scores up.

Agree with pp. But definitely think a factor is the grammar schools themselves who perpetuate the lie that you can get into a grammar without tutoring... if I believe what people on MN say this clearly isn't true for the vast majority especially for state educated children who according to most posters haven't actually covered all the material they will encounter on during the 11 plus exams. The whole system sucks in my opinion - and that's not to blame parents going through this it just rubbish that we a system that is fundamentally unfair.

My DD recently got a place at a grammar school and when I told other parents that she was going there they always asked if she was tutored! And then when I said yes they always made a sound which basically implied that that explained why she got in (and why their child didn't perhaps?)

Maybe some people lie about the 11+. It’s outside my personal experience, but I’m willing to believe it happens.

But do consider the possibility that some people are telling the truth, and being accused of lying. It’s happened to me and I’m pretty sure to a few others on this board, when we’ve used our personal experiences to challenge some of the narrative around what preparation is necessary for 11+.

I don’t think it’s intended to deceive.

They are slightly embarrassed about it and would rather be able to take it casually. It’s same as underplaying how hard you worked for an exam or prepped for an interview.

I think it also depends on the dc. Some need more prep than others. Not everyone gets a tutor, but then instead are heavily prepped by their parents instead. I doubt there are many who did it all themselves....there is always someone guiding them.

I don't think the idea of lying to lure other parents family into complacency works anyway, involved parents will do enough DD work to make sure their kids are not disadvantaged or deceived during the process.

After the process, I think the lie is probably a culture one, people have tendency to reward and praise inspiration over perspiration. So if the kids get in, some parents will feel the sense of superiority over the other kids who also get in with more asserting efforts. It is part of the competitive parenting psychology, inate ability is better.

If the kid didn't get in, it is also easier to play the blame the system game to avoid other peoples judgement. Insecurity plays a part too.

It is sad to see that once the lie happened, they have to continue lying on the narrative to cover up the previous lies. I really hope their kids don't take such as habitual behaviours.

I think it's because they feel embarrassed in case their child doesn't pass despite putting in lots of work. Also lots of people don't want others to pass... nothing to lose but it somehow makes them feel inferior. They want it to come across as effortless if they pass and not a big deal if they don't. It's quite sad reallt.

Yes, it's highly unlikely a child at a state primary school will have covered most of the types of questions in 11+ tests.

The English comprehension and writing are far beyond year 6 level and although it's possible some children will have the extensive vocabulary required (if they read books aimed at higher ages widely and look up words, or if they have a highly literate family who use an unusually wide vocabulary talking to children), for the majority it would take a huge amount of extra learning.

My own dc is at "greater depths" in all subjects at primary school, but would have needed at least a year's tuition in English and extensive practice to pass the test. DC loves maths so might be ok in that without tuition, but would still need to be taught exam timing and skills and the extra 11+ topics that aren't taught at primary school.

We've done some non-verbal reasoning and DC loves it, finds it fun and easy, but of course needed me to teach and explain it before getting the hang of it.

There's also the exam technique. For example, as DC has been practising bits of verbal reasoning with me and can do ten minute tests and get 100%, we thought a school test would be ok. But dc can't finish the longer tests in time, despite the questions being the same type, style, etc..

We decided not to try for private schools because of the enormous amounts of work and pressure it would involve, and that's with a child who consistently achieves highly at a state primary.

It’s an awful devisive exam that feels like some kind of retro throwback, esp if you happen to live where I do - 11plus last taken in state setting 1973

I definitely didn't tutor my DC. I was a single parent on benefits when DS passed in 2002 and certainly couldn't have afforded it, or the books.

I'm married now and DD qualified in 2020 (a long time later), but still couldn't afford it. I bought a few books, but hadn't got the faintest clue how to do anything when she asked, she got stressed, I got stressed as I couldn't help, so she didn't do them.

The exam changed completely from DS to DD. DS was only verbal reasoning, Dad's was NVR, maths and comprehension.

I'm not lying and I've never been asked or told anyone IRL whether they were tutored or not.

Most of Dd's classmates who passed (and a lot that failed) were tutored and I guess they may have known, as she never went.

There is a huge disparity in house size and lifestyles between DD and her friends (same with DS), but it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

Because selection at 10 is an invidious, devisive process that brings out the worst in people.

To a certain extent it is a private matter. My kids were at a very warm and fuzzy state primary where the class mums were very tight knit. Hoping to go selective felt like it was driving a wedge into the vibe that our kids were following the same path. Also I was playing down the eleven plus for my kids so they didn’t get their hopes up. So generally was not something that was discussed a lot.
plus once my dd let slip in an activity at school provided by an external provider that she had tutoring and he told her she must be stupid. It affected her for years after.