11 Plus Exams Forum

Our appeal hearing (Bucks) is in a couple of weeks. We are quite organised and consider ourselves reasonably ready, having gained lots of advice from other parents who have appealed, from this site, and from our child's Head. We consider we have a fairly good case (115/120, H.T. 'strongly recommends' and a 2/2 recommendation, plus some extentuating circumstances which may make a difference). We (husband and I) are more or less 'singing from the same hymn sheet' except for one issue which, if it comes up at the hearing, we can not agree on how to deal with it.

Others who have gone through this have been asked if their child was tutored and they have all said no (irrespective of whether this was the truth or not). This question is also on Sally-Anne's list of questions that may come up. All the unofficial advice is to lie and say your child was not tutored (ours was). We are not comfortable with lying. Husband favours saying "many of the parents to whom you ask this will lie to you and say their child wasn't tutored. We are not prepared to lie. Ours was, for the simple reason that our very ordinary state primary school provides no 11+ help over and above the statutory minimum (true). Since our child would be up against children from schools who do coach, including private schools whose main raison d'etre is 11+ preparation, then we felt it would be mad not to'.

We would be very grateful for your advice on this issue. How detrimental would it be to admit our child was tutored? This situation seems like madness to us. Everyone knows the percentage of children who are not tutored and still pass, can be counted on the fingers of one hand!

Hi santacruz

santacruz wrote:Others who have gone through this have been asked if their child was tutored and they have all said no (irrespective of whether this was the truth or not). This question is also on Sally-Anne's list of questions that may come up.

Panels are advised not to ask the question, although it can still come up. It is most likely to be in the form: "Did you do any additional preparation with your child?", rather than "was your child tutored for the 11+?"

All the unofficial advice is to lie and say your child was not tutored (ours was). We are not comfortable with lying. Husband favours saying "many of the parents to whom you ask this will lie to you and say their child wasn't tutored. We are not prepared to lie. Ours was, for the simple reason that our very ordinary state primary school provides no 11+ help over and above the statutory minimum (true).

No Bucks state primary school (ordinary or otherwise) is permitted to provide additional preparation for the 11+, and Heads must sign a declaration to state that they have not done so.

Since our child would be up against children from schools who do coach, including private schools whose main raison d'etre is 11+ preparation, then we felt it would be mad not to'.

I think it is rather over-egging it, to claim that private schools exist to prepare for the 11+. Clearly many private school parents hope to gain an edge in the 11+ by sending their child to a private school for their primary education, but there are also many parents who are committed to seeing their child through private education to the age of 18.

We would be very grateful for your advice on this issue. How detrimental would it be to admit our child was tutored?

If the question does come up (and as I mentioned earlier, it is far from certain that it will) I suggest that you simply say: "Yes, our child was tutored. We were very conscious that everyone around us was buying into tutoring and we felt under pressure not to place our child at a disadvantage."

This situation seems like madness to us. Everyone knows the percentage of children who are not tutored and still pass, can be counted on the fingers of one hand!

Bucks CC is also aware of this and has been discussing measures to deal with the issue for a long time. They have yet to find a resolution to it.

There are still bright children who pass without being tutored, and more than just a handful. There are also a lot of children who are tutored who would probably pass without additional help - it is just that parents are no longer prepared to take the risk of not doing so when the culture of tutoring is so widespread.

Sally-Anne

I fully agree with what S-A has written.

We don't condone lying on this forum, and I have to say the issue of tutoring is not going to be critical at an appeal.

Although it doesn't exactly make a 'good impression' to say "My child was tutored," I don't believe panel members - whatever their private thoughts - would actually take that into account when making their decision. I certainly never heard a single appeal where it was a factor.

The reason we advise caution where tutoring is concerned is that some parents go out of their way to volunteer the information "We paid for him/her to be tutored for 2 years!", presumably thinking it will show an appeal panel what good parents they are, and how committed they are to the 11+!

Best to say nothing unless asked. And, if asked, S-A has suggested the ideal answer: "Yes, our child was tutored. We were very conscious that everyone around us was buying into tutoring and we felt under pressure not to place our child at a disadvantage."