11+ at private schools same as entrance exam for grammar schools?

[maggie3kids]

Applying to primary schools with the intention of grammar secondary. Our main motivation for choosing an independent(private) primary school is that they do the 11+ exam. Apparently this is wrong because each grammar school has their own 11+ exam so whatever they do at primary doesn’t matter.

Can anybody shed some light on this please as it is going to impact us a lot more financially so I want to make sure private school will (help to) solidify entry into a grammar i.e. reduce need for tutoring and examination stress. Thank you!

My children went to Grammar schools in Kent . They were intelligent and I wouldn’t recommend that anyone over tutors their children unless they are naturally bright ! Not fair on the children!

I kind of agree. But I also think that the advantage of a primary prep with more attention could help a child reach their potential that they wouldn't otherwise achieve by being distracted by disruptive children etc etc.

However all state educated primary and onto grammar school children here and no extra tutoring as such other than 3 weeks of exam familiarisation in the summer hols before the test for each. I did consider private primary at one point, as my children were annoyed by others who didn't want to concentrate and the state schools do not teach the test so understand the OP's general reasoning. Yes they might not cope when they get there otherwise; although a prep school can enhance the ability to learn in a quieter 'all singing from the same hymn sheet' environment I think and give an otherwise bright enough child a chance?

Our village primary was generally excellent and did the job without the focused prep but mine are interested and all round academic, sporty and musical children so that helps enormously & no £'s needed to be spent on a prep school. However, I firmly believe they wouldn't have passed without exam paper familiarisation - they got to grips with the very unfamiliar non verbal in about 2 weeks. And I'll never get to grips with that in my lifetime!
But if they were average children and not showing as much enthusiasm and interest...would I have considered a prep primary school for the grammar school? Definitely!

Grammar school exam is in September of year 6 but they need to have covered year 6 maths in order to pass - bizarre!

We were late to get party and didn't start tutoring til march / April of year 5. But there was a child in the tutor group who had started September year 3 and was having 2 tutor sessions a week - 1 x 1:1 and 1 X group.

Our prep school goes to year 8 so they do nothing to help you with exams in year 6...

I've heard many times that the Kent Test maths branches into Yr 7 coverage! And they're right at the beginning of Y6 when they take the test! Although both mine passed without extra tutoring they didn't score amazingly highly over the pass mark for maths specifically. I imagine they were lacking Y6/7 content knowledge for maths at that point.

We live next to 3 Grammer schools. They are incredibly competitive. I only personally know 1 boy who got in and everyone knew this kid was superbright. The boy couldn't be arsed to go for an interview in Cambridge, ended up in a middle grade universtiy. He was offered an internship by a top bank whilst still at uni. Didn't make the final uni grades so the place was withdrawn. I have 2 teenage boys. Knowing what I know I wouldn't spend the money on a private school with the view it would secure entry to Grammer. I have been trying to instill good study habits in my teenagers, lots of museum trips etc and emphasize the world doesn't own them anything. Time will tell.

London selective and fee paying is extremely competitive, you'll need a prep school or tutoring from Y3. Schools vary ever so slightly: St Pauls' Girls add a science comp paper for eg. Also they need interview practice and current affairs knowledge before Y6.
The few London grammars... depends where you are, even then you could try but nigh on impossible! I'd go for prep primary if you're heading for fee paying and independent in London. Don't think a tutor is needed on top of that if your child would be suited to high academic achieving environment in the 1st place.

Based on my experience in London, I don’t believe that even the most prestigious prep schools, with impressive senior school destinations, adequately prepare students for grammar schools. Only a small percentage of prep school students take the grammar school entrance test, and many of them fail to get to the most competitive grammar places. The prep school girls in our prep often end up attending independent schools for their senior school. While schools do provide some preparation for the 11+, it’s often the anxious parents and families who put in the most effort for additional tutoring.

Most kids in grammar schools went to private primary schools (prep) if you look at the stats, so they can't be doing as bad as many posters are making out.

Most kids in grammar schools went to private primary schools (prep) if you look at the stats

@KitKatChunki could you link to the source for that statement, please?

It's just that comprehensivefuture.org.uk, not an organisation known for hiding unpalatable facts about selective schools in the state sector, comes up with a slightly different figure...

https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/interactive-map-of-grammar-schools/

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_grammar_school#outgoing-1588334

Also, as the respondent to the FOI request points out, and cf acknowledges, the data for 'not having been on roll at a state primary' is what is used as a proxy for 'attendeded a private primary school', and there are reasons other than 'attending a private primary school' for that.

Not round here! The Grammar schools in South Warwickshire are super competitive and most kids in them are from state schools.

There's a big tutoring thing as they attract kids from outside catchment as they're all excellent schools so it's hugely competitive to get in.

I know kids who were 25 points off a grammar place get into private schools easily, so certainly in this area, it's far harder to get into the grammar schools.

@SuePreemly according to the data returned to cf, not even QE Barnet or the Henrietta Barnett School are anything like >50% privately educated. Although it is the whole number on roll that is used, so I suppose the 2023 intake in each could be 51%+ from preps, with vastly lower % higher up the school???

Massively depends on where you live. A regular grammar system which creams off the top 25% I’d be very happy with limited tutoring. A bright child who practices a bit of VR\NVR exam practice I'm sure will be fine.

Super selective grammar areas is a completely different affair, especially were maths and English and written work make up the exam. It’s definitely beyond the Year 6 syllabus, and places are so highly prized, almost all the private school kids I know also heavily tutor.

For superselective schools like QE and HBS, where the majority of intakes come from South Asian families, these families tend to prefer paying for tutoring classes over attending private prep schools. Based on our experience, at most 10-15% of the intake comes from private primary schools.

In my experience, primary privates are somewhat a bit shit. You'd be much much better off picking a decent state primary and supplementing from Year 3 onwards with a tutor twice a week (one English session, one maths) . You're talking probably £350-£400+ a month on tutoring. Cheaper than private fees and honestly you've got more chance of getting in doing it this way.

How interesting is that St Paul's has broader intake at 13+ than 11+. Usually it is the other way round.

From our class 1 boy got into QE. ( His parents are from India) He was tutored since y3. As intelligent as many other kids in the class. It is all down to strict parents.

It's usual for boys public schools.

I live near Hampton boys and the intake at 13 is very limited

How interesting is that St Paul's has broader intake at 13+ than 11+. Usually it is the other way round.

Many of the private prep go up to age 13 / Year 8 which is why St Pauls, City, UCS etc has 36 11+ spaces and 100 13+ spaces.

From our class 1 boy got into QE. ( His parents are from India) He was tutored since y3. As intelligent as many other kids in the class. It is all down to strict parents.

I agree. When we looked for tutors, one agency (who I think were correct) said they don't take kids who haven't been tutored since Year 3 as the success rate is low if they don't start by Year 3 for the super selective schools (where there are 400+ applicants for 30 spaces).

I've got experience in Birmingham, where there's a few super selective grammars, two very selective independents (one boys one girls) and a few less selective independents.

My two got grammar school places and my dd also got a bursary at the very selective independent, which she took up. We didn't tutor or do private primary, but we did prepare them at home over 3-4 months. In our experience you need to learn exam technique for the state 11 plus and there's some new material for both, but after 3 months of practice, my kids tended to plateau and their scores stopped improving, so I'm not sure of the benefit of years of tuition!

Nearly everyone they went to grammar/independent with seemed to have been tutored - even those who'd come from private primaries. So it would be easy to think that you have to tutor/send to private primary in order to get in, but I don't think that's true. Those same kids would probably have got in with much less preparation. It's just that when everyone is doing something, you feel that it must be necessary.

Both the private and state 11 plus exams (in our experience) weren't rocket science - just basic key stage 2 English and Maths (although the non-verbal reasoning is a bit weird and you need a bit of practice on that). I can't understand why people think you'd need years and years of drilling on it.

The culture amongst Asian families aiming for superselective London grammars is send to group and individual tuition classes from an early age and study all of Saturday morning for years and a few hours a week in the run up for exams and don’t take a summer holiday in Year 5. That is what the OP has to be willing to compete against. It is a type of grafting many white middle class parents are unwilling to put their DCs through as it is not in their culture, preferring lots of eg ballet/tennis/cricket/swimming type sports on a Saturday and a more relaxed childhood. A lot of the London preps that are very expensive also provide a more rounded education focussing on sports, science, drama, music type stuff and actually spend less hours on pure English and Maths teaching than an outstanding state primary. So go figure who has more of a chance getting into superselective grammars. In addition, the London through private schools that are most competitive do not want their intake to leave so many do not push in Year 5 to get kids into state grammar. They will be reciting Shakespeare in a play instead.

OP honestly choose a good state primary or accept that you might be paying all the way if you go private from the start.

Which brings us to the core question: why strive for a superselective grammar school if most children gain admission primarily due to early tutoring? The results often reflect the intense selection process and the significant investment of money and time in exam preparation. Many excellent private and comprehensive schools offer a well-rounded education with much less pressure. Grammar schools do not have a magic pill to make students achieve better grades beyond the selection process.

@Edinb They do all want to tutor. That’s what parents believe they should do and it’s not unusual, particularly in some cultures. Others don’t like it and don’t bother. Therefore we do accept non super selective schools.

Grammar schools are not identical. It’s much easier to get to a Bucks grammar than a super selective grammar. Even then tutoring goes on for years. The lower attainers at the grammars aren’t much different to the higher attainers at the secondary schools. So parents try and elevate dc to the grammars believing that teaching is better and outcomes are better - but evidence shows not necessarily!

“Which brings us to the core question: why strive for a superselective grammar school if most children gain admission primarily due to early tutoring?“

I am not sure that is true. Most of the kids in superselective grammars are naturally bright AND have been tutored. There are too many questions to answer correctly in a short amount of time for an average child to even pass. These are greater depth kids, typically only 1-3 per state primary class have the potential to get in, and many have intense preparation on top of that. The same applies to some of the eg West London private schools, lots of very rich super bright DC there too.

I do think parents have to check it is worth the time investment though and bear in mind whether the child’s mental health can cope with this format of education. Sometimes ambitious parents forget about that aspect. I feel it should come from the child, they should want to study hard and be ambitious. Many are.