How smart do you need to be to pass 11+

[Mumofgirls12341]

My 9 year old is in year 5 and preparing for 11+ and I was just wondering how smart does a child actually need to be in order to secure a place? We’re aiming at London super selectives Latymer, HBS and Woodford County Girls School.

DD has always been exceeding/greater depth since reception but I wouldn’t say she is exceptionally bright - does she have a decent shot? I have heard of people saying it’s almost impossible to get into these schools so any advice would be greatly appreciated.

HBS first round cut-off was 347.65 this year, if she works at this level on Atom then she may have a chance to get through to the second round. Atom scores do not always correspond to the actual tests results though, but at least they'd give you an idea.

Latymer is less competitive obviously.

Woodford County, not very. Tutoring is king, actually ability is second to that.

It's insanely competitive. I've seen a huge change over the last 5 years. It seemed to be far more possible to get a place at your first choice school previously compared to now. If her Maths and English are solid and she's curious, motivated and determined - then that's a great start. The trouble is it's all very strategic as well and so she needs to be able to pivot between topics, demonstrate sophisticated reasoning and manage her time effectively.

It's not about smart
It's about tutoring, time and effort

So quite different to 'smart'

DS cheerfully failed the 11+ by quite a margin. He went on to get 10 AStars at GCSE. And two A stars and 2 Bs at A level. So yeah, God knows what you have to do to pass the 11+

Dd got into one of the schools you've listed, last year.
She's very bright and always has been. She had tuition and didn't do anything outside of the actual sessions (not even any hw. She just refused) and got in with scores just slightly above the cut off.
So it is possible to get in with minimal tuition. More to practice speed than anything else.
A bright kid with regular tuition and practice has a good chance.
Lots of kids we know had tuition from very young and didn't get in.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but those we know who did well, read a lot.

Mine passed the 11+ with a lowish amount of tutoring, nothing 1 on 1 or particularly intensive and got very average GCSEs. They were bookworms but not hugely academic ar all.

I think it depends on the child and day of the exam. But you are off to a good start. Sometimes GDS is not enough. They need to understand how to take the test and attention to detail, something that isn’t really covered in state school. There are questions in 11+ that try to trick you out, so attention to detail for this is important.

But was this to a SS grammar? Seems very unlikely!

In my area (SE England and not the schools you mention) tutoring is key, even for "smart" children. My child despite being very good at maths needed maths tutoring to cover the topics his school teaches in year 6 and also because his English was (relatively) a bit weaker needed tuition there too. Most children here tutor from year 5 at the latest.

My DC is smart but the tutoring was more necessary than I realised. He didn't get through the second round. I think I was too patchy with tutoring and didn't do extensive practice and relied on him being smart and top of his class too much.

Some other children were doing 2-4 hours of tuition per week and extra homework every day and I wasn't up for that level of effort. In hindsight maybe I should have realised that in advance but it's hard until you have done it.

I don't know the schools, but a basic answer would be:
You need to be in the top (Number grammar places divided by total number of places ) × 100%.

Number of people sitting specific tests doesn't help as people sit multiple

In Kent you can be less bright than in an area with a few superselectives only.

Herein lies the problem. Every single person has said it’s not academic ability that gets you a place, it’s the ability to afford tutoring.

Is that what super-selective means in reality?

I think you do need to be naturally quite academic but it's also a lot to do with technique and preparation and understanding how to approach different question types. Where we are (Trafford) you need to be able to work quite quickly too as there are a large number of questions to get through in the test. So definitely a combination of factors are at play

Depends on how competitive the school is. For HBS where there are 3,500 applicants for 150 spaces, you need to start tutoring age 3 to be in with a good chance. Tutoring means you can do it yourself with a lot of hard work not necessarily £££. Two girls I know were tutored by their mother starting age 3 every single Sunday religiously using CGP books + 2 hours daily homework set by their mum after school.

For comparison my son scored top 2% in the country for his Year 6 SATS and he came in the bottom 20% last year in the QE 11+.

DD sat the 11+ test for some of the schools you mentioned this year. She has been working at Greater Depth since Year 1 and goes to a very good primary school, where's she's one of the top in the class. We had a tutor since Year 4 and did a lot of practice papers. She didn't even make it through the first round.

Of course I've asked myself if it was all worth it. But DD wanted to do it as her friends were too and I think if we hadn't, we'd always have wondered what if. The extra support has definitely helped her learning and boosted her confidence, and this will benefit her at secondary school wherever she goes. I think it really depends on the child, DD1 is very resilient and wasn't upset about what happened. DD2 is another matter and I don't think the process is right for her.

I do think it has got harder and lots of families really go for it with the prep. I'm talking multiple tutors, missing school to do intensive courses and no family holidays for a year so their child can work every day. I know these children and most of them got a place. We didn't want to do this and I will always be pleased that DD had a great work / play balance, and enjoyed play dates, holidays and extracurricular activities. The work fit in around us rather than the other way around. But it's important to understand that this is what you're up against when you apply to these schools. Latymer had 3,300 registrations for 192 places this year.

Of course some children have a natural aptitude for these exams and will do well regardless of how much prep they do. These children will most likely do brilliantly at these types of school as it's the right environment for them. I was gutted when the results came through but in hindsight, I now think DD will thrive being one of the top of a different school rather than being one of the bottom of a highly selective school.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you want to go for it, then do as you will always wonder what if, if you don't. But go in with your eyes wide open and your rational head on so you don't get too caught up in the noise! Good luck.

Its a couple of exams on 1 day, not really a fair measure of how "bright" a child is.
DD did pretty well (not the schools you mention) but there were very academic kids who didn't do well. One was so "bright" the parents didn't feel tutoring was necessary, one went to pieces on the day for example. The child who absolutely knocked it out of the park at DDs school actually wasn't know at the school for being academic but she spent hours every day for 6 months slogging through past papers.

My eldest: top of his class and greater depth/exceeding expectations from reception to Year 6 and 100% in all SATS subjects - only just scraped a pass (Trafford, so not super selective).

He's great at learning the curriculum in school (and continues to be at the grammar he got into) but at 10 years old he just wasn't so good at working under huge pressure, working accurately at great speed and putting exam techniques into practice in a stressful situation. Those things are all skills in themselves.

You need both.
If you're not a naturally bright, no amount of tuition will get you in.
If you're bright, you still need tuition to cover stuff that school doesn't cover and to improve speed.

30 years ago, when I went to say bye to my lower classes teacher before I leave the school to join in grammar(not in UK) , he got very angry and said I challenge them to take in people who is getting 30% marks and develop them, no t the one who gets 90%.

So true, They should take the bottom set of people in schools :)

Ah, yes, I mis-read the OP as describing some super selectives and then another school. One school locally to us sets the bar higher and only one of mine passed for that one and she had more turoring than the others (the youngest and I would have felt really sorry for her if she hadn't) but we have no super selectives.

My parents could afford tutoring but not several years of private education. Back in those days they had assisted places. So the parents didn't have to pay anything at all from 11-18 if they were broke. Bargain. Lol. But there was only about 4 places like that in this one school.

You need to have money for tutoring and a willing child that wants it enough to do the studying but not so much they'll crush under the pressure on the day.
It's not really about smart anymore sadly.

I completely agree, it's about personality and stress response on top of a base level of ability (and all round ability at that) - ridiculous, indenfensible system.

DD has been attending a well known tuition centre since January. The tuition centre have carried out assessments and she got 83% - which they say is a promising indicator however, I’m skeptical as I know tuition centres just want to keep children enrolled for money purposes.

DD is a very keen learner though and does have a natural aptitude to grasp concepts very easily - she has been like this since a toddler.

I guess we will just continue doing what we are doing and as we told her - if she doesn’t pass it isn’t the end of the world.

The tuition centre have carried out assessments and she got 83% - which they say is a promising indicator

It depends on the schools you are applying for. I spoke to one agency who I felt were very honest. They said for the top London schools eg St Pauls, City, UCS you need to be scoring 95% to be in with a chance of being amongst the top 700 applicants to get through to second stage.