"tutoring for grammar school is cheating". AIBU to be fuming at DSIL's attitude?(665 Posts)
namechange coz as much as I don't care if she reads this, I don't want her to know my normal nickname.
I am getting my DD tutored for grammar school. DSIL thinks it's cheating if she can't get in without being tutored and will therefor struggle when she gets there. for fucksake, the exams are not based on school curriculum - it's like being a brilliant footballer but been trialled to get in the team on your ability to tie your laces. fucksake.
Anyone else encountered this attitude?
Oh I can add hypocrisy to the list? Her DD audtitioned to go to Stage Boarding School. Did she do any practice/preparations for the audition? Only 9 lessons a week, every week, for 6 years.
AIBU to be cross?
Oh, and sorry for my part in slight thread derailment, but we are on page 27 now and how much really can you say about "cheating" by getting a tutor !
- Mind you I wouldn't get one, I'd either help them myself, or DH would, or we'd ask a friend. Green economy !
Well, I've "bred" one who saves her pennies to buy pressies for her friends (so, about as un-materialistic a teen as you could find) Also a big fan of the local charity shops which she sees as a great green opportunity for re-cycling, and a treasure trove for those birthday gifts too.
And another one who saved his birthday money from DGP's to buy a Nexus7, which he is enjoying a lot. So, not as unusual as DD, but still not really materialistic I'd say.
Thanks for your interesting tips on things to find on-line eg. from museums
- that sounds worth exploring.
I think most of us were quite broke as teenagers (t'was the 70's for me)
I guess there are more opportunities today, and it's just life that you can't always explore or afford them all.
You could certainly argue about culture and what is "better" than something else and what culture enhances life more than others. Is the working class grandfather, father and son going to football matches on a Saturday a "worse" cultural capital than the 3 generations going to the theatre once a month?
I don't think it has to cost a lot. We do a lot of music at home (I sing every day etc) and that is pretty much free. I remember having so little money as a teenager I was sourcing second hand music shops for scores and I had three, can you imagine it, only three tape cassettes of music. Nowadays you can download just about anything free on the internet and get hold of just about any older book for pennies on line. The museums are free and what you might see in the museums you can view on line on youtube videos and learn probably a lot more than tramping round the museum itself and being forced by your parents to stand by the item in which you have no interest.
However yes teenagers can be expensive particularly if you choose to breed a materialistic one and that is all the more reason women should pick good careers so they can afford what will benefit their children.
Now they are teens/pre-teens there's so much I'd like to take them to ...
Things like residential weekends with exciting stuff going on.
Really need a job ! Teenagers are sooo expensive !
The veneer of culture is pretty thin on most people!
Was it Aristotle who said that the human condition is to look for meaning in that condition through philosophy, science and art? To not do so is to give up on being human. Interetingly though, the traditional means of pursuing that meaning (opera, classical cooking, poetry ec) are being superceded by new means and it is these new means that provide the most valuable cultural capital.
There is some very interesting research coming out juggling. The sample is relatively small, but the ouutcomes are interesting about how many people have a lot less cultural and social captial than they think they have. Particularly the traditional middle classes.
If you cannot access high culture you are doomed to mere survival.
There is only a certain amount of cultural capital that you can access for free. When I'm working a good deal of my income goes towards supporting those sort of extra activities for the DCs, and when I'm not working, as now, I feel it's these things that we miss first and most - travel, seeing theatre, music, and comedy, and DC's participating in dance and music, and other life enriching activities. They may sound like a luxury but I feel lack of access to art, music, and culture can make life much more limited.
We are still carrying on with many things, but some are out of reach for now.
True Bonsoir. I am as we speak waiting in a cafe for a friend with almost no economic captital but she has every bit as much (if not more) social and cultural capital than me because she is an artist and a musician and lives in central london! But of course many people live in parts of the country where not much goes on and even here in London many don't access the free stuff!
Up to a point. If you have economic capital, you can purchase cultural capital (music, art, dance, drama lessons, travel, museums, art galleries, monuments, languages etc) that you don't necessarily have yourself. But some of those things also come "for free" supplied by the state - you don't need anything but the impetus to access them for your DC. And you might have economic capital but prefer to buy consumer goods rather than invest in your DCs' cultural capital.
There are of course a few parents who care little for their DC but they seem to be in the minority. Most care deeply. And most are prepared to invest heavily. The class difference though is what there is to invest in terms of economic, cultural and social capital. You can't invest what you don't have!
"It may be that these parents do have more invested in their children's academic success. But I wouldn't say that was the same thing as caring. For example, of a high 'investment' but low 'caring' approach, several of my daughter's classmates have been told by their parents for some years now that they are going to be doctors."
I think that the distinction between "high caring" and "high investment" parenting is an important one. Ideally, you need caring and investment if DC are to achieve. I know quite a lot of families who are excessively "high investment" but very low on caring and it can produce horrific psychological results - which of course only show up many years down the line when the damage is probably pretty much irreversible.
It seems a big leap - of logic? of faith? - to say that grammar school parents care more about their children than those whose children go to other secondary schools in their area.
It may be that these parents do have more invested in their children's academic success. But I wouldn't say that was the same thing as caring. For example, of a high 'investment' but low 'caring' approach, several of my daughter's classmates have been told by their parents for some years now that they are going to be doctors. These teenage girls may not particularly want to be doctors or have any real interest in medical science. It is simply that their parents have decided that this is a high status, well-rewarded job for their intelligent offspring and have done everything they can to propel their children in this direction. Whether their daughters would be happy as doctors is another matter entirely. (NB I believe there is a high drop out rate at medical school. Perhaps this is not surprising?)
That's true Yoni. I went to private school as a day pupil, but there were boarders there too, and definitely some parents that left almost everything to the school.
I agree that it isn't a class thing.
I think though that if we venture into the world of Private you can definitely get parents who think that because they are paying they are absolved of all extra parenting...especially some of the boarders. So it isn't necessarily a class distinction, again back to what kind of parents they are.
Of course their are Frau, but at least they come from families that are much more likely to value education and will do what they can to help their children cope with their problems, rather than leaving them to get on with it, or even make their problems worse.
You do obviously get clever children from dysfunctional families, but even clever children can learn that education doesn't matter if their parents don't care about it.
I'd rather my children were friends with children whose parents give them good values and were in all the bottom sets than children who are as intelligent as it gets but have parents that allow 18 rated films at age 13 and never turn up to parents evening because they couldn't care less about their child's education.
I don't care if that makes me a snob in some people's eyes.
I don't want to be around adults that can't be arsed contributing to society, so why would I be ok with much children being around people like that?
There are a fair number of dysfunctional kids/children from dysfunctional families at grammar school. Anorexia - yes. Alcohol and street drugs - yes. Self-harm - yes. High functioning autism - yes, in abundance. Shoplifting - yes. (It's just the school doesn't advertise it on the prospectus, and most of the parents would really rather pretend not to know.)
I also think as they get older children essentially educate - or do not -educate themselves. So much depends on their own curiosity about their world and their own ambitions. Which can, to an extent, be nurtured but which cannot be grafted on to them by others.
But admitting that you don't want your child to go to school with children from dysfunctional families just leads to accusations of snobbery
Lawks, can't think why! Good job you never get clever children from dysfunctional families, eh!
I agree with you wordfactory. That is also how I see my role as a parent. It does get more difficult as children get older, because I'm not capable of teaching every subject my children might decide to take to A level standard. I need the school to also be good at its job.
I think of myself as a home educator who uses school as one of many resources.
I want all those resources to be the best quality and most apporpriate resources that I can lay my hands on.
School does matter, absolutely! And because of that we have to acknowledge that school can give a disadvantaged child a step up, but also be willing to admit that school can be a negative influence as well.
That's why many parents choose grammar school, because they want their child to be amongst children from like minded families. But admitting that you don't want your child to go to school with children from dysfunctional families just leads to accusations of snobbery.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.