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!

https://www.nesta.org.uk/feature/case-studies-early-years-practice-england/case-study-6-bexley/

Bexley is a grammar area. Does not seem to do too badly does it given the statistics.

Mmm. So result not too bad, what is the parents’ concern about not having these grammar schools? Is it a lack of motivation to do tutoring?

Although I don’t think you can have it both ways - either they are a privileged educated demographic leading to the results of their DC, or they are not

Most likely neither; it’s more of a mix. Many educated families with bright children do not believe in or participate in grammar school or elevenplus tests

@Edinb - not sure why the “beliefs” of one group should suddenly dominate the schools that other parents have chosen? Cultural imperialism and inverse snobbery at its best. Beliefs/ideology of one group shouldn’t dominate choices of other people. Neither grammar nor private schools are harming others despite the vain attempts to gaslight those minority groups.

Bexley does very well educationally speaking given the deprivation statistics and they are a full grammar borough, the Bexley test is offered to all in state primary.

Pretty sure if you asked most parents if they would choose living in a 2 million pound house in Richmond in a great comp or church school catchment vs having to give up their year 5 summer to do practise tests/or pay through their noses for private schools, many would choose the former in a heart beat. Except most do not get that choice or live in Muswell Hill or Cambridge or one of the many very expensive areas with some excellent coed state schools, populated by a rich educated demographic.

In any event, the reason I linked the Nesta case study for Bexley is because it is my understanding that Labour under Starmer understand that it’s the very early years were help and interventions are required to have the most impact.
Whilst the far left ideologues would love to see grammars abolished for good that is not happening under Starmer. What is more the carrot of VAT on private schools may have been an unworkable ruse - apparently the private school lobby are finding ways for a legal challenge. That has me laughing all the way home because as a liberal I value parental choice.

I’m not dismissing the choice, but I certainly have opinions on some aspects. Your prejudice is already making a binary choice between a deprived area with a bad school or a grammar school within the same. However, your argument based on the statistics for Bexley shows that such a division based on selection is actually a moot point

You are mixing up or trying to link two unrelated concepts: early years education intervention and grammar schools, which are selected based on tutoring by families who can afford the money and time.

Early years education interventions aim to provide equitable opportunities for all children to develop essential skills from a young age, while grammar school selection tends to favor those who already have certain advantages.

The impact of early interventions is more about leveling the playing field, whereas grammar school selection perpetuate existing divisions not about academic but more on social division.

I wonder how the staff in state grammar schools feel about the fact that the majority of kids joining them have been tutored. You’d think that they would feel some concern about all the naturally bright kids with parents who can’t afford tutors, who have been usurped by the ones whose parents paid.

Similarly, I do wonder how a primary school teacher feels when they see potential in a child in their class but know that the family will not be able to tutor. Do they try to talk to the family about the possibility of applying to a grammar? Is there any sort of outreach program by grammar schools?

Could grammar schools not find a way to assess pupils that levels the playing field, like universities with contextual offers?

it all feels very unfair.

She starts at the state grammar school in a couple of weeks!

That’s interesting @Bigtom . Did you know that tutoring was something everyone did, but could not afford it, or did you decide to risk it, or were you blissfully unaware?

Well done to her.

I have 3 dc who got places at a super selective grammar.

dc1 we didn’t tutor at all. Dc2 was tutored from November of Y5. Dc3 did Atom learning from April of Y5.

I taught them all to read fluently before they started school so they were super confident with literacy all through primary.

@user149799568
If a child gets a place at a superselective grammar, they're pretty much guaranteed to be learning with hardworking, disciplined, academically focused DC from families that value and support academic achievement highly

So what if the school has very average teachings, poor pastoral care and as all grammar schools is underfunded since they are getting less money per pupil?
Most of comprehensive schools have sets that and a child can end up in a set with academically focused kids.
I don't understand why to glorify the schools where most of hard work falls on parents and kids obtain little support.

Your prejudice is already making a binary choice between a deprived area with a bad school or a grammar school within the same.
@Edinb because unfortunately it is an aftermath effect in so called grammar counties. The acceptance rate at grammar schools goes up to 25 perc in those areas. This impacts the local comprehensives that have most often poor results.

The problem with all the research is it focusses on “areas”. As a parent I am simply focussed on getting my DC the best local education for them. Which in our case happened to be superselective grammar and we didn’t tutor either. And the schools have been excellent. But they are certainly not full of rich kids etc
Even comprehensivefuture recognises on their website specifically that there are more non White kids in grammars than in the general population. So going for grammars is now officially racist. So there we go and good luck with that one.

it all feels very unfair.
@HotCrossBunplease and it is unfair. And not only about tutoring. Many grammars are based on postcodes( apart of 11+ test) and it is driving up the roof the property prices around the school.
The study shows that there is less Free Meals kids at grammar schools as compared to other state schools. 20-10 perc of kids at grammars went to private prep schools.

It focuses on areas because the impact of grammar schools is different in different areas @Araminta1003 . In grammar counties they have very negative impact at the rest of the schools. Then elsewhere there are grammars that are not better than comprehensives in terms of results. And on the contrary, there are super super selective with 1 place for 20 candidates and accepts less than 1 perc of local kids. It cannot be judged everywhere the same way

I suppose we decided to risk it. We did workbooks and past papers with her ourselves so that she was familiar with the style of questions. But mainly my philosophy was that she’ll pass if she’s bright enough and, if not, perhaps it’s not the right school for her anyway.

The families going for grammars aren’t poor. Most will spend as much on art/sports/tutors as the cost of private school fees.

@PeachSalad Why do you think people on FSM will have large numbers of very bright children? The vast majority aren’t educationally that bright or working in good jobs. There are a few who are bright but don’t work for a variety of reasons but in all my years in education, these parents are fairly unusual. Some have inherited a lot of money and simply don’t bother to work and get FSM. The brightest dc tend to have university or well educated parents, parents who have secured good jobs and often provide a good educationally supportive home. FSM dc are given PP for a reason. To catch up and close the educational gap, but not get to a grammar.

Bucks grammars have FSM places where a lower test score is needed. Not sure if all grammars do this.

“The families going for grammars aren’t poor. Most will spend as much on art/sports/tutors as the cost of private school fees.”

That is definitely incorrect in our grammar schools. Local secondary private schools are now 22k-38k! (Before the VAT comes in) Some kids have like an online Hindi/Mandarin teacher and Maths tutor back in India/China at a fraction of the cost. That is hardly going to amount to 20k plus. Of course, some families may spend it on travel etc instead but if you have 3 kids you may have 20k to travel a year, but that is not the same as being able to afford 66k plus in school fees is it. Some may also want to save for their DCs unis and into their own pensions/ISAs etc.

@TizerorFizz ... with all due respect, what on earth are you talking about? This isn't the 90s or even the 2000s. The job market is overflowing with people seeking office jobs.I hold an MBA from a reputable US university, as well as another master’s degree. My parents were doctors, yet despite this, I have twice been made redundant over the course of my 25-year career. And guess what? My child was on free school meals while I was job hunting. It took several months before I finally secured an opportunity. I’m fortunate to have a well-paid job now, but I’m not detached from reality—I’m fully aware that the job market is tougher than ever.I know equally well-qualified people who are currently job hunting, including IT professionals in less sought-after specialisms who are struggling to find work.Please refrain from making such simplistic assumptions that we are in an employee’s market with well-paid roles waiting at every bus stop. The job market doesn’t work like that, and it’s only going to get worse. Talk to headhunters; they’ll enlighten you. Unless you’re in a very narrow niche, it takes time to land a good job.

Grammar school parents in London are generally not poor or deprived. While some may not be wealthy enough to afford private schooling for multiple children, most believe that the educational outcomes, such as grades, make grammar schools a worthwhile investment. Despite the actual funding for these schools not being significantly higher, they still consider it a bargain.

Grammar schools get less funding per child because they teach fewer truly disadvantaged children. The flip side is that they have to support fewer truly disadvantaged children, so they have fewer costs as well. I leave it to you whether you believe that the extra funding that the government provides for disadvantaged children is sufficient to make up for their disadvantages.

Every teacher I've spoken with has indicated that even average teachers can be very effective if their classes are composed of well behaved children who actually do the work that's asked of them, even if it's their parents making them do the work. You don't need miracle workers to convey information to these types of children. Also, many teachers I know prefer to teach in environments like grammar schools; I've seen no evidence that teaching is poorer or that recruiting is more difficult in grammar schools than in comprehensives.

I'm familiar with superselectives in North London. Typically, 30 or more students sit exams for each place. I suspect that their student bodies are different from the top sets at even very good comprehensives.

I don't understand why to glorify the schools where most of hard work falls on parents

Many parents want their DC to attend schools where most or all of the other parents are very supportive of academic achievement. Circling around to the funding issue again, some grammar schools, such as Queen Elizabeth's in Barnet manage to raise a significant amount of donations from these very supportive parents.

Most of all, you're assuming that the students who work so hard to try for these places have an alternative of a good comprehensive with excellent teachers and a strong top set. That's not true for all of these students.

Circling around to the funding issue again, some grammar schools, such as Queen Elizabeth's in Barnet manage to raise a significant amount of donations from these very supportive parents.

That raises about 500 pounds per student per year, OK is this subject to VAT? Given the amount of money these parents throws in exam prep and tutoring am I surprised?

How much difference it made compared to a family in a comprehensive school that spend the same amount as addition?

Grammar schools get less funding per child because they teach fewer truly disadvantaged children

@user149799568 please stop repeating that myth. The schools receive specific amount per pupil - £5500 and grammar school receive -£4500. SEN department is separately funded depending on how many kids they have on SEN register including EHCP and SEN monitoring fund. This number changes each year depending on the needs of that year.
SEN departments in grammar school receive less money as they have fewer SEN kids. But that has nothing to do with the fact that per pupil funding is lower. It is a separate fund.

Every teacher I've spoken with has indicated that even average teachers can be very effective
So effective that the Ofsted downgraded half of the grammar school fron Outstanding for very average teaching. Yes, it is easy not to make effort around clever kids.

Circling around to the funding issue again, some grammar schools, such as Queen Elizabeth's in Barnet manage to raise a significant amount of donations from these very supportive parents.

Yes, this proves the raised above argument that grammar schools kids have richer parents than comprehensive schools.

That's not true for all of these students.

What is not true, that comprehensive schools have sets? Or that in top 100 state schools sith best results are not only grammar schools but also SE London comprehensive schools like Brampton Manor that sends to Oxbridge more kids more than any grammar? And there are 164 grammars in UK.