Why dont all kids do the 11+ like they apparently did 40/50 years ago?

[PinkChaires]

I am not from the UK and so i had no idea what a grammar school was when it came time for my dds to go to high school. By the time i found out it was two weeks before the test and apparently they had no chance at passing without tutoring ( trafford). Surely this disadvantages some kids? Kids who are smart but just simply do not have the opportunity to sit the test?

But this means a child who might have passed without tutoring and been well suited to a Grammar School will be denied a place in favour of a less capable child whose parents could pay for tutoring. Is that fair?

@PinkChaires ahh that makes more sense then 😂 Although there are places for 'top 20 scores' etc the majority of places go to children either in priority catchment or on the border of these areas, so I can understand why you heard less about them near the city centre.

Doesn’t mean “it’s an English thing”.

The reason why some areas still have grammars is that it was guidance - it was never compulsory to change to comprehensive. Most areas had support for the change but Trafford, Kent, Buckinghamshire etc didn't. It's all there in Hansard if you look.

Welcome to the wonderful world of UK education OP, with its weird historical hangovers!

It’s not about passing! It’s about getting a high enough percentage that you actually get into the school! Let’s say the pass mark is 75% and both your hypothetical children are perfectly capable of achieving that. However, the grammar school is oversubscribed so in reality no-one scoring less than 92% will get in.

That’s why parents pay for tutoring. NOT to push a not very able child over the 75% Pass line, but to increase the percentage they get in the hope they’ll get into the school.

No, it’s not fair but that’s the fault of the previous governments who got rid of so many grammar schools. I paid for tutoring for DC to achieve the absolute very best mark they could because I knew that a Pass (ie 75% or whatever) was o longer enough. They actually got excellent marks in their practice papers but I still paid because I needed to get the very best out of them and for them to not drop a mark. This grammar school is highly competitive - because it’s one of few. I paid for minimum tutoring so the tutor could assess them, pass on any tips, etc, and then I did a lot of the practice myself with DC.

If the 70s government (?) hadn’t destroyed the system, we would still have a grammar school 5 minutes drive away and a simple Pass would have been enough. Now DC travels for an hour morning and evening to get to the grammar in the next county.

Why didn’t I send DC to the local comp? Because they can’t control the poorly behaved children there; what they teach is taught at such a low level; they didn’t have the subjects DC wanted to do - and DC themselves refused to go there because it was so unpleasant.

If I hadn’t had the money for tutoring, I’d have done it myself.

You are still paying for an unfair advantage for your child's education.

I must be old fashioned but I find all this tutoring odd - has the 11+ changed so much then?
I did the 11+ and was never tutored, I passed.
Both my children did the 11+ in their day (Lincolnshire) and also passed, it never occurred to me to tutor them and we couldn't have afforded to even it it had.
Why is this suddenly a thing?

In north London there is no 11+ but there are grammar schools and you have to pay to sit an exam for each school.

Completely bonkers and unfair, parents have to be in the know. Primary schools should be automatically putting forward the brightest kids.

@BreatheAndFocus explained clearly why the tutoring happens.

Firstly, because the test is quite different from how it used to be (largely in terms of speed). Secondly, because some grammar schools have 3000 very capable applicants for 180 places.

If no one tutored, you wouldn't need to tutor... but as people tutor other people have to tutor to keep up and its the poorest left behind

But how you completely ban tutoring?

Right - I never denied that. My post was an explanation because you seemed to think that people paid for tutoring so their children could pass. It’s not that at all!

And, as we’re talking about money and advantage, what about people who can afford houses in nice areas to go to better schools? The extra tens or even hundreds of thousand pounds they spend is vastly more than the small amount I spent on tutoring.

As I said, I did most of the practice with DC myself. DC is very bright. The tutoring simply prepped them for the exam, ensuring they didn’t drop a point and thus miss out. They also gave DC confidence and put them in the right headspace.

I don’t regret paying and I don’t regret doing the best for my child. I paid just over £100 a few years ago. Hardly throwing money at it. I’m on benefits now but if younger DC wanted to go to grammar school, I’d do the same again. The grammar school was by far the best fit for my child.

Because passing no longer gets the child a place! And because we now have far fewer grammar schools.

I think people understand why it happens, but it’s still the same outcome, the child that is tutored gets a ‘false’ score. So that child will be of lower ability than the kids who got that mark without extensive tutoring, and therefore will find it difficult to keep up. I don’t understand why a parent would want that for their child. My exSil did some pastoral work in our local grammar school, and a large amount of it was supporting these children.

Agree with @Moglet4 in our area NVR questions were 8 in 3 mins! A child who isn't prepped for that speed and technique to answer questions would stand a chance against others that have prepped for months or years in advance.

The system sucks but it is what it is. I also agree it doesn't help there are so few grammar schools left, causing high number to apply from large distances. Bloody madness.

OK, well in the superselective grammar I taught in I think met ONE student like that in 5 years. They were all, uniformly, very able!

Again, that’s simply not true. I suspect my DC might have got pretty much the same score (exceedingly bright, went to a Gifted residential, etc etc) but the tutoring shored that up and also provided the knowledge they needed to ensure they got the max score. My DC is one of the highest achievers in their school. Why do you keep saying that every child that has tutoring would have failed otherwise and is struggling?? It’s simply not true.

All the children who got into DC’s grammar are of high ability, whether they were tutored or not. Nobody - and I mean that absolutely literally - nobody is struggling with the work!

Tutoring won’t turn a less able child into a genius any more than having Torvill and Dean train me will mean I’ll win a gold medal at ice-skating! The tutoring is done by people who are familiar with the 11+ and can communicate tips to the children and go through questions. This helps ensure the child will perform at their best on the day. It can’t change a non-able child into a clever one.

Think of it like this, my DC had a possible range of marks they were able to achieve. Let’s say it was between 85% and 91%. The tutoring increased their chance of achieving within the top of their expected range. This was important because the percentage needed to gain entry was 89%. Yes, maybe DC would have achieved that on the day without tutoring, but I couldn’t risk it.

If our local grammar had been open, then DC might only have had to achieve 75% to get in and I wouldn’t have bothered with tutoring.

So your DC didn’t need the tutoring to get in then 🤷‍♀️ Exactly my point, why bother if they are gifted anyway.

Plus, you can’t know that nobody in your child’s whole school is struggling with the work. I can guarantee that there will be kids who are….

There really aren’t many. I taught in a super selective and the kids were very able, even in set 8.

Are you being purposely obtuse? We didn’t know the necessary percentage until afterwards. It could easily have been higher. I paid for tutoring to ensure DC performed at the top of their ability and got a mark at the top of their percentage range .

No, you can’t guarantee there are children there struggling 🙄 They are all very bright children and none of them are struggling. Where they might have struggled though is going to the local comp where bullying, aggression, truancy, disruption, etc etc is rife.

More than ‘not struggling’, they’re all happy and well-adjusted children at a school where the work is appropriately levelled at the academically able, and where children want to learn and behave well.

Meh, people move house into catchment. People find religion. People pay. People get teaching jobs for fee remission or staff children priority. I know one vicar who actually took over a failing school and made it better in time for their DC to attend. Pretty extreme, but good outcome for them (and other DC of course - as long as they don't mind a lot of religion alongside the much improved GCSE results).

I really can't get exercised about 100 or so state grammar schools.

Better to ask: why do parents feel they have to do this? Why can't we rely on the local school being ok?!

Exactly my point, why bother if they are gifted anyway

To maximise their chance of getting a place if the percentage mark necessary was high. In a previous year it had been 95%.

I honestly think you don’t understand. You must be in an area with plenty of grammars. That’s not what it’s like here. There are 2 within 100 miles. Yes, DC could pass with zero tutoring BUT there are so few grammar schools nearby that passing is nowhere near enough. Children have had to achieve very high percentages to get into the school. Hence - for the eleventy millionth time - why parents pay for some tutoring.

The grammars in West Kent are like that too. Think you need 99% for some of them. They really are not full of struggling children! For one thing they need to be a full year ahead on the maths curriculum.

Not all of course but I think that truthfully many of the intensely tutored children, tutored incessantly for many years previously, would probably have not passed the 11 plus, if they had not been so intensely prepared. Compare this to the many children who pass the 11 plus, without any tuition, completely on their own merit. Surely if the child is capable enough they won’t need the tuition?

Wrong. There are no grammar schools at all in Wales and Scotland. The only places in the UK that retained a full grammar school system are Northern Ireland, Kent, Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. There are scattered grammar schools in other counties/boroughs but they are few and far between. I live in the SE and my nearest grammar would be a 4 hour round trip.