How to know if my child is grammar school material?

[user148984678942]

Hello

I was wondering how you knew whether your child is ‘grammar school material’. I live in Kent and in my town there is a grammar school everyone is trying to get into, one secondary school with a good reputation that everyone is also trying to get to and then all the other secondary schools with very dire reputations for both academics and behaviour. We are on the borderline of catchment to get into the good secondary school and I would say it is possible but chances are slim. Looking at the past years data both the grammar school and the good secondary school have similar number of applications per one place.

My DC is still pretty young, Y2 so I cant figure out for the live of me whether the grammar school is the right setup.

I have however friends strongly recommending to sign up my DC to 11+ Yr3 group tutoring then Yr4 and Yr5. I have some friends who put their DC in Yr5 and said in retrospect it was too late and should have done in Yr4 at least.

I personally feel if someone needs 3 years of tutoring then perhaps the grammar school wouldn’t be right for them and even if they get-in they would struggle. However I was told this is not as much about abilities as the fact that the primary school doesn’t necessarily prepare for 11+ exams and starting early means there is a smaller gap to close ie my DC would be learning and progressing at slower peace, making it more comfortable.

I also feel this would be kind of ‘stealing’ their childhood asking to do extra tutoring from Yr3 but at the same time, the alternatives are pretty dire and we are very unlikely to move due to finances. The secondary schools around here had a bad reputation for years now, so I don’t expect that to drastically improve by the time my DC goes to Yr7.

My DC doesn’t really like doing any homework, prefers watching TV and playing as expected, but when does has no issues at all with absorbing knowledge. The feedback we are getting from the primary school always is the same that my DC meets expectations, never exceeds or below.

I am not sure what to do here, if there were some average schools around my area, I wouldn’t consider this at all but with the choices that are available I am really 50/50 what to do.

You can always try for Year 3 and see how things go? But we’ve been told a child should be working at greater depth without tuition, to stand a good chance of success.

Poor little things if they’re being tutored from year 3, in my opinion thats far too young. What assessments does the 11+ contain? See how your child progresses next year and how they do in SATs then decide. As you very sensibly say, if a child needs intensive tutoring to pass will they cope at a very selective school. Also bear in mind that the less desirable secondary may well improve in three years and the sought after one may go down, it can often change with a Head leaving or joining. I passed the 11+ many years ago, but there was no pressure and certainly no prep.

I don't know but agree with you it's an absolutely brutal way to destroy their childhood.
Someone needing three years of tutoring probably isn't naturally suited to it and is just accepting what the parent forces them to do.
I imagine a child who is doing well, expected standard or greater depth, and is also incredibly studious about learning and is seeking out extra activities and practice themselves and cannot get enough would be a natural fit. Or someone who just whizzes through everything easily is a natural fit.
But they get outbid by those kids who are not as naturally bright and curious but whose parents make them do lots of extra work, destroying their childhood.

Having been at a Kent grammar school myself, and having a child who is naturally good at things like VR and NVR but has zero interest in most things academic, I would say that they are definitely not for everyone.

They suit children who are naturally inquisitive and are seeking extra challenges. Children who don't just enjoy reading but will look to read more on subjects that they are interested in.

They also suit children who are happiest being in a class where they are challenged by their peer group.

They can work very well for clever kids who are inclined to coast and be lazy as they won't be allowed to and if they coast, at least it's within a similar cohort.

3 years tuition for the Kent Test is nuts. You can buy some Bond books from Smiths and use those to ensure they are familiar with the kinds of questions. But for things like NVR that will just help them not be fazed by the kind of thing they will see in the paper and waste time wondering how you solve them. You can't really teach the answers (if that makes sense).

If you don't have a child like that, they probably wouldn't be very happy there. We didn't send DD as she is better suited to a comp where she can be in high sets for the things she's really good at, and muddle along in the middle for the stuff she hates or can't be bothered with. She'd probably have come out with a higher set of GCSEs than she will had she gone to a grammar, but I suspect she'd also be deeply unhappy.

Children take SATS towards the end of Y6, whereas 11+ exams are taken at the start of Y6.

It’s now virtually unheard of to pass the 11+, at least at the more competitive grammars, without any preparation. A significant number of children do anywhere up to 3 years of tuition (1-2 more the norm, those who do less often do week long intensive camps in the holidays).

Some claim their kids have had no tuition but most of those have in fact been “tutored” by parents. This is quite an undertaking to do well. Some of the questions are sufficiently difficult that no-one in my immediate family (4 Oxbridge degrees, and a PhD/professorship in physics between us) could do. But my 11 year old can because he’s been taught how to do them.

Aside from knowing the subject matter (and bearing in mind that verbal reasoning and non verbal reasoning are not taught at all in state primaries), there is a lot to learn about exam technique and strategy, though perhaps more so for the independent schools which use online adaptive testing.

OP I suspect in Kent there are 11+ tutors and tuition centres which could do some sort of assessment of your child with the next year or so and give a view on whether they are 11+ material. Hopefully your child’s teacher can give an informal view as they should have some familiarity with the standard that’s needed to secure a grammar place based on the pupils that have taken the test in the past.

Finally, bear in mind that birth rates significantly drop from the current y6 onwards so you may well find the catchment of your good local comp expands.

The CAT4 test score will give you some idea and usually the teachers will guide you too. They're not meant to prep/coach for the 11+ , but they are allowed to tell parents if they think their child would struggle at a grammar

BTW My DC had tutoring once a week from year 5.

Tutoring from yr2 is crazy. Way to kill a love of learning.
DD was tutored in yr5. Mostly to learn VR techniques and how to answer the questions. Her maths needed a bit of work too.
I'd say tutor yr5, yr4 if you must. But lots of reading would be good and basic maths skills nailed.

Y2 is too early to be thinking about this. For now just try to foster a love of learning, encourage reading, support them with their school work, then revisit this in Y4/5.

You will get an idea from what is in their school reports in a couple of years' time and just generally how smart/ curious/ keen on learning they are.

Your child just isn't old enough yet.

I would also agree with PP that this isn't something you could/ should force. It should be that if they have a natural love of learning and a natural intelligence, you are supporting and encouraging that - rather than tutoring them to try and get into a grammar school which isn't right for them.

I went to a grammar school that had an 11+, and I remember feeling really sorry for kids who were just over tutored by anxious/ overbearing parents, when they were never going to get in, and never going to have a good time there if they did.

This is why grammar schools are controversial - they tend to leave other schools with the worst behaved/kids who think they are failures and lower socio-economics and parental involvement.

In our case we had a primary where a few started tutoring in Y2, a few more in 3 then I would say over half in Y4, 5 and 6. The parents here are highly competitive and the kids actively excluded kids who weren't at the tutor groups with them over the weekends/in the week. I am of the opinion if the grammar is good then perhaps this is worth it (largely because the other schools are so bad and we all want what is best for our kids) but in our area they were pretty poorly performing grammar schools. I decided to school privately as a result - although I do feel I wasn't left with much choice due to the poor performance of schools in our area (because of the under performing grammar schools and the rush to get into them meaning tutoring doesn't filter the best, merely the most tutored, which shows in the league tables).

Most primaries in the area with competitive parents did CATs tests, then the head would call each parent and tell them if they should let their child sit 11+. This was timed to happen a week or two before the 11+ as they didn't want to encourage tutoring (already well established by most of course). These are tests meant to test aptitude in a variety of ways that shouldn't be prepped for as they are meant to reflect your natural ability. It was interesting to me that a fair few who had extensively tutored got relatively low marks in CATs yet got in on 11+ though, so learning how to do the 11+ does pay off if you can afford it.

I agree with you OP. If a child needs tutoring from year 3 to help pass the 11 then I would question if it was the right setting for them.

Tutoring does help otherwise no one would bother BUT if tutoring wasn’t allowed then only the naturally bright child would pass.

I know 2 children from my DCs primary class who were tutored from yr 3 and one passed and one didn’t, one was about average academically but the tutoring pushed him enough to be able to pass the test. The other child was academically below average and no amount of tutoring was going to help her pass the test.

There is no shame in not passing because it’s designed for the most able. It’s nothing to be proud of or ashamed of. We can’t all be top of the class and that’s fine. Most kids wouldn’t pass it without being tutored to within an inch of their lives.

You know if your child has the aptitude to potentially pass. They will be accelerated readers, on the ‘top’ table, get taken out for extra classes to push them. They’ll be the higher ability kids in the class and by year 5 you’ll have a good idea where your child is.

There was one grammar school where we lived and people would want they’d kids to go from a 30 mile + radius. I wasn’t bothered about DC going as it was too far away and I was concerned about friendship groups however when I realised one of DCs classmates was sitting the test (the one who didn’t pass) I thought perhaps I should put DC in as I knew that DC was working at a higher level than their friend so I guess it was pressure/guilt.

As a last minute decision I decided to apply and DC sat the text with no tutoring, but I was quite adamant that a selective grammar school will be difficult, so there’s no point in ‘cheating the system’ because ultimately I wouldn’t want my child to struggle throughout as I certainly couldn’t afford to pay for continued private tutoring.

My friends DC also went to the same school as my DC and was in the same sets as mine and working at a higher level so she decided to put her DC in for the 11+ too. She was of the same opinion as me regarding hot housing.

So my DC did pass the test as did my friends DC. My DC said she’d prefer to go to the local secondary and due to logics I wasn’t against that but would have supported them whatever. My friends DC went to the grammar and is doing really well. The boy from their primary school who was tutored from yr3 isn’t doing great. He was used to being top of the class in primary, but was out of his depth and couldn’t keep up a the grammar because it was inflated and wasn’t innate ability alone. Had they kept up with the private tutoring it would have probably made a difference

For context my DC got 110 in maths practice SAT and 118 in the English one (whatever it was - it was during covid so they didn’t sit the actual Sats but it give a an indication) they scored 129 in a CAT type test when they started their chosen secondary and the head of year said DC scored the highest in their cohort- about 300 kids. None of the above surprises me.

On the other hand my other DC can barely read or write and there is absolutely no way in a million years could they pass the 11+. It’s all about context.

Sounds like you already know what is right for your child, and well done you for not ignoring your gut for the sake of pretence. 🙂

That level of tutoring seems crazy! I’m not in Kent but thought it was an old school grammar area? E.g multiple grammar options? Where I am there are only two in the county and none in the surrounding counties, so lots travel in from other areas, making getting a place very competitive. But I don’t know anyone who tutored from before year 5.

That's the whole problem, I don't really know. I have an option either going ahead with tutoring and hoping for the best or not too do it and send the child to a rubbish secondary school.

I strongly believe Year 2 is way too early to say. There is no way of knowing academic abilities or interests in couple years time.

I think for now I like the idea to signing up for Year3 tutoring group and seeing how it goes although I am still not 100% sure.

My child is Y5 and she is in a tutoring group for 11+. We started in summer of Y4, no way would I start earlier. For me the key now is read a ton (fiction, non fiction, magazines etc), get brainy games (rubik cube, monopoly, junior scrabble etc), do some mental arithmetics and make sure they are performing well at school. FWIW my DC was already quite academic in Y2, excelling in every subject and still is.
so maybe we need less 11+ prep than others.

Maybe check to see if the school is performing well? Ours are all very low scoring on national league tables, which made me feel there was little point other than to avoid the other worse schools. If you live somewhere with a great grammar in the top 100 then maybe think of tutoring for Y4/5 just so they are used to the papers. That gives you more time to prepare.

I don't think it is the case that needing tutoring must mean that you are not grammar school material - because most kids are heavily tutored and therefore getting amazing scores, you have to get your DC tutored so they stand a chance.

DC1 who got all 8s and 9s at GCSE and 4 x Astar at A-Level seemed very normal in year 2 and their overall academic strength only began to show itself half way through year 6. By year 7, it was obvious.

Incidentally, DC1 did not even pass the 11+ despite a good few months of tutoring. But that is a whole other story....

First I would check whether the local grammar does GL or CSM as this will dictate the type of entrance exam (paper or online). If it's online, then take out a subscription to Atom Learning, otherwise go for some low-key tutoring from year 3 or 4 at the latest. It may sound early, but it can be done at a much lower intensity than if you start later. Combine this with reading classic British children's novels together (not exclusively, but expose them to the kind of vocabulary required for exam success). Good luck!

It was obvious my dc1 was was very able from toddlerhood. I agree some kids make progress later on.

put your dc on the waitlist for the tutoring in y4 and make sure you aren’t obliged to pay.

meanwhile do extension “work” at home - lots of extra reading and lots of puzzles and more complex board games. Play word games while you’re driving, practise times tables and set each other maths quiz questions etc .

you’ll get an idea of their potential if this goes well and can decide about the tutoring later.

I have tutored students for Kent, and I never take on students in Y3 - they will burn out so quickly and/or lose interest in studying when all the parents seem to talk about for three years is grammar exams. Don't do it to your children! Just work with them yourself, do reading every night, learn new words as you are reading and work on school maths at a slightly higher level than what they expect.

I can usually tell in my first lesson whether a student is likely to pass the 11+. It's not about knowledge or intelligence. Maths can be learnt, VR/NVR can be improved with practice. It's all about attitude. A child who is keen, curious, focused and determined to do well is more likely to pass the 11+ regardless of knowledge level. I think a parent (or a teacher) should be able to tell by Y3 if it's worth going through the whole 11+ as it's quite an intense affair and may not be suitable for every child.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with

I personally feel if someone needs 3 years of tutoring then perhaps the grammar school wouldn’t be right for them

I think it became clear that mine were academically inclined from year 4ish. Hard to be sure earlier.

poor kids being tutored from y3.

i don’t live in a grammar area, fortunately (or unfortunately)

In year 2 though? Gosh they are 6-7, brains very much still developing rapidly....I'm not sure assessments such as 'expected' or 'greater depth' tell you very much at all at that age. It's all so tick box, you have to be able to do joined up writing by the end of year 2 be able to get greater depth in writing for example, hardly proof of underlying intelligence.

If you want to get him into grammar then you probably would be wise to get a tutor seeing as everyone else will be doing the same, so the bar is high. That said, it can probably wait until year 5/6. I try to stay away from all the competitiveness amongst parents as much a possible. If he gets in in 4 years time then that's great, but if not it's no big deal and he'll probably be happier elsewhere.

My dd was working at greater depth throughout her primary.
On the last day of term in year 5, I asked her teacher if we should aim for grammar.
On the back of the answer, she saw a tutor during the 6 week summer break.
She did say it was very obvious who had been extensively tutored and she was pleased she didn't have the struggle they did.

I agree year 2 is too early. DS had 1 hour of tutoring a week from the start of year 5 (plus homework). The aim wasn't to pass the test but to improve maths and English although they did also show them how to do VR and NVR as well.

DS passed and I agree with a pp that it's mainly attitude. DS is thirsty for knowledge and could read really early meaning he read all sorts of weird and wonderful books.

@user148984678942
I think that with most really clever children you can tell a long time before they start school that they are academically strong. In the way that they pick up how to do things on their own. No need to teach them how to read or tell the time because they will have already worked these out when small.

If you don't know whether or not they are academically strong, it's usually because they aren't in that category of clever. This type of child really can score the very top marks in things like the 11+ with just a few hours explaining the mechanics of the tests.

If any child requires 3 years of tutoring I feel you are doing them a disservice because they are being asked to be something that they are not, and in my opinion this is a risk to their future mental health, even, or maybe especially if they do succeed in getting a place.