The eleven plus - getting into grammar school?

[soupdragon1]

Quite a lot of discussion already so I'll just add in my own little bit around the actual 'exam day'

The missus was a nervous wreck, so she stayed at home and I drove my son to the exam. I knew that through school, teachers, pupils, realatives etc - all the chat was about the tests in the weeks leading up to the actual exams so it was pretty safe to say all the kids knew their importance - there was little point in me drumming that home to him on that particular morning.

I just tried to get him into the correct mental state before going in and just gave him some simple advice. The 1st thing I told him was that he wasn't there to try and get the questions all right - I told him there were would be some that he didn't know and not to worry about those - just skip them and move on to the next one. The whole idea of the test was to see what you were good at, and what you weren't so good at.....and if it was too tricky, don't waste any time on it. Do the easy questions 1st and whatever time is left over, go back to the harder ones. I said to him that its really as simple as that, all you can do is answer them as best you can and after that, we'll go get some KFC.

All I was really trying to do was to take the pressure off him, send him in with a clear mind and a simple process to follow - no weight of expectation and nothing to worry about. When we arrived, the amount of kids that looked pale/scared out of their wits was frightening - maybe 1 in 5 kids looked like they just wanted to turn around and go home. And when I picked my son up, he came out with a smile on his face. Some of the other kids came out crying - quite hard to watch - all the age of them.

You can do all the practice papers you want, but I'm guessing 1 in 5 had already failed before they even seen the paper - scared out of their wits they were. And when the results came out, quite a number of the kids who were nailed on high scored, actually came out with poor results, and didn't get enough to get the grammar. My son was just above middle of the road, and came out the 2nd highest boy in the school. Where the hell did that result come from!? I think attitude on the actual test day was part of the reason - kids are fragile at that age so making sure they aren't under pressure is a key consideration IMO.

We tried tutoring - my son hated it. We got practice papers, loads of them. He detested doing them - we forced him for a couple of weeks before I said enough is enough - he's 10 years old - its the summer - let him enjoy himself. I just said to him 'Son, practicing these papers will help you, but I'm not going to force you to do them. When you feel like doing one, just do one'
Now we did have to gently remind him 'are you going to do a test paper today?' but we made sure he wasn't feeling pressurised into it. His practice results were so sporadic prior to that, we thought it was getting counter-productive.

At the end of the summer, he hadn't even done half the tests but he was showing signs that he could score well enough, just lacking consistency. I just got the feeling that when his head was switched on to it, he done well and when he couldn't be assed doing practice papers, the results showed that too.

The summary from me is that each kid will be different so while people will advise on the best 'strategy', its also important that the parent, knowing their child better than anyone else, can look at that strategy and see how to actually apply that to their own child. A copy and paste strategy won't work for everyone, and don't overlook the actual physcological bit as well - they are only kids and I can remember vividly so many children turning up to the exam hall looking pale and scared. If you can make sure that's not your child, then they've already got a head start on quite a few of the other kids already

[RicksAlfas]

soupdragon1 said:

...wise words...

This is very true. I'm sure most of the pressure comes from neurotic mothers!

We tried to get it through that it was important and there's no point fannying around with it, but at the same time it wasn't the be all and end all.

[northwest monkey]

bobtail4x4 said:

can you re sit a failed 11 plus?

At our local grammar, yes - sort of.

You can't resit an 11+, but you can try again a year later for a "12+" which is an age adjusted 11+.

They do allow entry into the 6th Form though to do A-levels if the GCSE results are the required standard - no entrance exam.

Interesting thread this.

Some of the kids in my son's class at school have recently done the 11+ equivalent. 6 took it & 3 passed. Of the 6 kids that took it, 4 had tutoring of one sort or another. 1 had no tutoring whatsoever - not even a test book (parents are scrotes) and 1 clearly had nothing better to do on a Saturday morning.

The 3 that passed were all tutored - the one tutored kid that failed I personally think threw the exam (he missed Q1 then answered Q2 in Q1 place...). The one I feel for is a girl that really is very smart indeed but has had no help - from school or her parents. She missed out by 0.2%.

Of the 3 that passed, 2 of them are very well suited to a Grammar school. They had had a bit of coaching in exam practice & timing - nothing more than that. One of the kids that passed has been coached intensively for 4 years. She's never been in any top set for anything but has been trained to pass an exam. Personally, I think she'll struggle at a Grammar.


We talked to our son about doing the exam & even did some test papers with him but we all agreed it wasn't the best school for him. A happy child is more important than being able to say "My child is at the Grammar.". Saying that, we've now got the bother & worry of trying to get him into a decent "normal" school...

I speak from experience of going to a Grammar school & not particularly liking it. We couldn't do Woodwork or Metalwork at GCSE but could do Latin or Greek

[oldcynic]

youngsyr said:

Have there been any studies that show that tutoring is actually effective for the 11+ exam?

I ask, because my understanding of the tests, both from going through them personally and reading about them as an adult, is that they are essentially IQ tests designed to assess your reasoning ability rather than what you've learned and therefore tutoring for them is not as effective as it may be for a more conventional knowledge based test?

From my experience coaching my daughter last year I would say that tutoring is absolutely effective. This was for the Buckinghamshire 11 plus and the practice books I bought were spot on; my daughter didn’t pass but it would have been cruel to just throw her in at the deep end. She spent 12 months learning new vocabulary, setting out to read more challenging books, and I also taught her a load of maths - algebra and stuff that I just assumed she’d know.
She also needed to learn to move fast - look for the easy way to answer the question - and this involved learning her times tables properly so she could spot factors quickly.
I’m confident that she could have passed if we’d put our minds to it more effectively but we knew all along that it wasn’t important in the grand scheme of things. With a different choice of local schools I may have viewed things differently.
As mentioned in my previous post we didn’t cover non-verbal reasoning and that was a mistake on my part.

[Dolf Stoppard]

omniflow said:

I think birthday is also a factor - i.e. a kid with a birthday in September has to score higher than a kid with a birthday in July to be considered "equal".

Nope. Results are normally standardised to take this into account.

[Dolf Stoppard]

Bill said:

Check the catchment area too. AIUI our local grammar requires higher marks from kids who live further away.

Catchment areas are less common than they used to be. Schools are more interested in the best candidates than offering places to local children.

[Dolf Stoppard]

sjc said:

Unless things have changed recently there is no such thing as a pass mark in the 11+.
You can easily get a score that would get you I a school that may be not logistically workable but might have a lower threshold for entrance.

Yes, each school will set it's own qualifying score. In some schools there will be an automatic qualifying score - get this, and you're in. Some schools will set a mark which if you achieve you're considered grammar school ability. Whether you're offered a place will then depend on the school's oversubscription criteria - normally distance, because you can't give priority to siblings.

[Dolf Stoppard]

bobtail4x4 said:

can you re sit a failed 11 plus?

No.

[Dolf Stoppard]

youngsyr said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

lrdisco said:

Seriously if your child needs tutoring to get in to a grammar school then they should not be there.

If you don't pay for tutoring, there's a chance that a less able kid will score higher and push yours out, because they've had tutoring, and despite perhaps being not as academic, knows better the techniques on how to present the answers to pass the exam.

Have there been any studies that show that tutoring is actually effective for the 11+ exam?

I ask, because my understanding of the tests, both from going through them personally and reading about them as an adult, is that they are essentially IQ tests designed to assess your reasoning ability rather than what you've learned and therefore tutoring for them is not as effective as it may be for a more conventional knowledge based test?

Test paper providers will say tutoring doesn't work. But the reality is that a child who is familiar with the type of questions / exam will probably do better than a child of the same ability who has not been prepared for the test.

[youngsyr]

Dolf Stoppard said:

youngsyr said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

lrdisco said:

Seriously if your child needs tutoring to get in to a grammar school then they should not be there.

If you don't pay for tutoring, there's a chance that a less able kid will score higher and push yours out, because they've had tutoring, and despite perhaps being not as academic, knows better the techniques on how to present the answers to pass the exam.

Have there been any studies that show that tutoring is actually effective for the 11+ exam?

I ask, because my understanding of the tests, both from going through them personally and reading about them as an adult, is that they are essentially IQ tests designed to assess your reasoning ability rather than what you've learned and therefore tutoring for them is not as effective as it may be for a more conventional knowledge based test?

Test paper providers will say tutoring doesn't work. But the reality is that a child who is familiar with the type of questions / exam will probably do better than a child of the same ability who has not been prepared for the test.

I fully understand the reasoning behind why tutoring may work, but what I'm asking is: is anyone aware of any scientific research to test the theory?

It seems like a very simple piece of research to do - just get 100 non-tutored kids from varied backgrounds in an exam hall and give them an 11+ test.

Then give them tutoring for a couple of days followed by another test. The increase in their scores will very clearly show whether test experience and tutoring combined improves scores.

Has anyone done that?

[Dolf Stoppard]

youngsyr said:

Dolf Stoppard said:

youngsyr said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

lrdisco said:

Seriously if your child needs tutoring to get in to a grammar school then they should not be there.

If you don't pay for tutoring, there's a chance that a less able kid will score higher and push yours out, because they've had tutoring, and despite perhaps being not as academic, knows better the techniques on how to present the answers to pass the exam.

Have there been any studies that show that tutoring is actually effective for the 11+ exam?

I ask, because my understanding of the tests, both from going through them personally and reading about them as an adult, is that they are essentially IQ tests designed to assess your reasoning ability rather than what you've learned and therefore tutoring for them is not as effective as it may be for a more conventional knowledge based test?

Test paper providers will say tutoring doesn't work. But the reality is that a child who is familiar with the type of questions / exam will probably do better than a child of the same ability who has not been prepared for the test.

I fully understand the reasoning behind why tutoring may work, but what I'm asking is: is anyone aware of any scientific research to test the theory?

It seems like a very simple piece of research to do - just get 100 non-tutored kids from varied backgrounds in an exam hall and give them an 11+ test.

Then give them tutoring for a couple of days followed by another test. The increase in their scores will very clearly show whether test experience and tutoring combined improves scores.

Has anyone done that?

If you want to look at research about what impact various factors have on a child's performance in the 11+ test, have a look at the Sutton Trust papers.

As far as your suggestion goes, it's not that simple. A couple of days tutoring with 10 year old children could never be proven to have had an impact - even if results did change.

Children sitting the same type of test would be expected to do better the second time around. Plus, you'd have to use a different test, which then makes it difficult to compare results.

You'd also need to age standardise the results. A cohort of 100 would not be big enough to give you any statistically meaningful results.

Tutoring 'might' work for some. Practice will not do any harm. Endlessly pushing children to do well in the 11+ is often a horrible thing to witness.

Encourage your children to do well in everything they do. If they're bright, chances are they will do well, no matter where they end up. But, an overly tutored, practiced, prepared child who ends up in a grammar school, may not do well.

Selective schools are great at many things - differentiation in the classroom is not one of them.

[youngsyr]

Dolf Stoppard said:

youngsyr said:

Dolf Stoppard said:

youngsyr said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

lrdisco said:

Seriously if your child needs tutoring to get in to a grammar school then they should not be there.

If you don't pay for tutoring, there's a chance that a less able kid will score higher and push yours out, because they've had tutoring, and despite perhaps being not as academic, knows better the techniques on how to present the answers to pass the exam.

Have there been any studies that show that tutoring is actually effective for the 11+ exam?

I ask, because my understanding of the tests, both from going through them personally and reading about them as an adult, is that they are essentially IQ tests designed to assess your reasoning ability rather than what you've learned and therefore tutoring for them is not as effective as it may be for a more conventional knowledge based test?

Test paper providers will say tutoring doesn't work. But the reality is that a child who is familiar with the type of questions / exam will probably do better than a child of the same ability who has not been prepared for the test.

I fully understand the reasoning behind why tutoring may work, but what I'm asking is: is anyone aware of any scientific research to test the theory?

It seems like a very simple piece of research to do - just get 100 non-tutored kids from varied backgrounds in an exam hall and give them an 11+ test.

Then give them tutoring for a couple of days followed by another test. The increase in their scores will very clearly show whether test experience and tutoring combined improves scores.

Has anyone done that?

If you want to look at research about what impact various factors have on a child's performance in the 11+ test, have a look at the Sutton Trust papers.

As far as your suggestion goes, it's not that simple. A couple of days tutoring with 10 year old children could never be proven to have had an impact - even if results did change.

Children sitting the same type of test would be expected to do better the second time around. Plus, you'd have to use a different test, which then makes it difficult to compare results.

You'd also need to age standardise the results. A cohort of 100 would not be big enough to give you any statistically meaningful results.

Tutoring 'might' work for some. Practice will not do any harm. Endlessly pushing children to do well in the 11+ is often a horrible thing to witness.

Encourage your children to do well in everything they do. If they're bright, chances are they will do well, no matter where they end up. But, an overly tutored, practiced, prepared child who ends up in a grammar school, may not do well.

Selective schools are great at many things - differentiation in the classroom is not one of them.

Each of your "problems" with the process seem pretty trivial to me.

100 not enough subjects for a conclusion? Then use 1,000 or 10,000 over multiple years if need be.

2 days tutoring not enough, then increase it to 5 or 10 or whatever.

Scores expected to increase across two tests? Then control for that by giving one half of that population no tutoring at all to identify the advantage that solely experience gives.

Problems comparing different tests? Reverse the order the tests are taken by different sub groups to allow for differences in the tests.

As above, seems a pretty straight forward piece of research on a very important subject.

[-Pete-]

My second daughter has just passed her 11+ and will go to the same grammar school as her sister. The 11+ doesn't test what they learn at school, or their intelligence. It's about managing the available time and avoiding the hidden traps in the test. My girls are both very bright, but I doubt if either would have passed without tutoring. The test is designed to catch them out - I'm well educated but I couldn't answer many of the test paper questions.

I was against the idea at the beginning, but our tutor knew how to get them through the test. The £2K per child investment seems like a bargain in retrospect. If you think your child ought to be at a grammar school, I'd thoroughly recommend 11+ tutoring. But as others have said, if your child is average and a decent state school is within reach, perhaps they'd be better off there.

The parents we know who thought their intelligent children would sail through were generally disappointed, although fortunately the local state school is also very good.

[loafer123]

We didn't tutor my daughter but her school did prepare her for the 11+.

She passed, and would have had a place at a local grammar, but it wasn't right for her and we chose to send her to a different school where she is thriving.

Whether to go for the 11+ and grammar school route depends upon what your child is like and what the grammar is like.

Some schools are hot houses and some children thrive on that. Some are more relaxed, but that brings other issues and some children thrive on those.

Do your own research, talk to parents of kids who go to the schools and trust your instincts.

[xeny]

youngsyr said:

As above, seems a pretty straight forward piece of research on a very important subject.

Doesn't sound cheap - who has an incentive to fund it?

If I had a child who was bright enough to deal well with grammar school (it's a miserable experience if you're not reasonably academic/clever) I'd probably go with bribing them to do lots of past papers and leave it at that. Maybe money per mark scored or similar so they have an incentive to do well. It's a big advantage if you go into a test relaxed, confident and pretty much looking forward to it.

I passed it a good few years ago now, and due to an odd combo of circumstances ended up having essentially no notice, so I at least went in to it not stressed about it, just a bit confused.

[Dolf Stoppard]

youngsyr said:

Each of your "problems" with the process seem pretty trivial to me.

100 not enough subjects for a conclusion? Then use 1,000 or 10,000 over multiple years if need be.

2 days tutoring not enough, then increase it to 5 or 10 or whatever.

Scores expected to increase across two tests? Then control for that by giving one half of that population no tutoring at all to identify the advantage that solely experience gives.

Problems comparing different tests? Reverse the order the tests are taken by different sub groups to allow for differences in the tests.

As above, seems a pretty straight forward piece of research on a very important subject.

They are not 'my' problems - they are the reality of the situation. Here's some more 'problems' for you.

Developing an 11 plus test that can accurately test the ability of a cohort of children costs in the region of £40k. You'd need a new test each year. A three year trial - £120k. You would then have the overheads of testing the children. Let's say a very conservative £80k.

You talk about a 10,000 child trial - let's say half of them are tutored for ten days over three years. That's 150,000 days of tuition. Assuming a very conservative figure of £60 per day, per child, would cost £9 million.

For any kind of accuracy you'd also need to test all the children in advance to make sure you're starting with children at the same level. Let's say another £200k.

You'd then need to make sure the tutored children are all tutored in the same way - quite how you'd do this and who would do it - I have no idea. I also don't know where all these children are going to come from.

You then need to fund the background admin / organisation of the above and the analysis. Perhaps another £200k.

So, who is going to fund the above? It won't be test providers, schools, councils, or the government. Nor will it be bodies like the Sutton Trust. Why? Because it's disproportionately expensive given the relatively small number of grammar schools we have.

It would be a nightmare logistically.

There are too many factors that would cast doubt on the validity of the study.

And (a controversial but true point) if the results did suggest tutoring works, everyone would hate the results. This is because tutoring is obviously something only the more well-off parents can afford - grammar schools are already considered a bastion of the middle classes. Just look at how many children at grammar schools receive free school meals. I'll give you a clue - it's very, very low.

[lrdisco]

As above at my sons school the take up of Free School meals is less than 1%.
The school receives no Pupil premium. So no children with SEN.
If there was no tutoring prior to the 11+ then the entrance exam would be fairer but not perfect.
We sent our son to the exam with 1 days notice with no pressure and no tutoring. We did not send our daughter for the exam as it was not the right environment for her.
All that say that Grammar schools are not exam factories can you show me how they can achieve 99.9 grade C and above GCSE results without very very intensive class work?
There is rugby and cricket but very little else.

[hepy]

Slightly different suggestion, are there any schools nearby that require church attendance to get in?

In my experience the local ‘church’ schools are better than the local comprehensive or whatever they are called now.

No exams for the kids to pass, but you do have to give up some Sunday mornings for a few years. I enjoyed the peace and quiet every Sunday, and treated it as a learning experience.

I went to a school that had an entrance exam and detested every minute of it, put me off learning for life!

[Cheib]

My son is in Year 5, we’ve just been to open evenings for the two local grammar schools (both of which seemed excellent) and I am starting to feel like am inadequate parent hearing through the grapevine that other kids are being tutored.

No idea how common it is but at my kids school they sit NFER tests which are used as a guide of progress starting in Year 3. Verbal Reasing Non-Verbal etc...a score of 120 indicates they’re of 11+ ability. My son is on that track but despite him going to a “good school” seems we’ll need to look at tutoring to prepare his exam technique as well as work on specifics from what I know.

I’m a big fan of Grammar schools being a product of one myself but they’re a world away from what we were educated in. The one I went to was all boys with two forms of entry and 64 boys in a year. In the third week we were streamed into three groups....nothing to do with academic ability....it was about getting the 20 kids likely to be in the Rugby team in one set so the Welsh Rugby mad PE Teacher could coach the rugby team during normal PE lessons. Imagine if a schools did that now !

[xeny]

lrdisco said:

All that say that Grammar schools are not exam factories can you show me how they can achieve 99.9 grade C and above GCSE results without very very intensive class work?

If you're a smart academically inclined child, especially with a decent amount of exam experience under your belt, GCSEs are not that challenging....