Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

Another thread about tutoring

547 replies

PooshTun · 19/05/2012 17:02

Elsewhere there is a rehash of the usual tutoring versus no tutoring arguments.

There are those who argue that schools should not select kids based on a 11+ since it favours kids that are tutored as opposed to kids who have natural ability. As the saying goes, don't bring me problems, bring me solutions ie how would you fix the selection process?

Please, if you want to simply ban selective schools then start your own thread. I am interested in ideas from parents who are in favour of grammar schools but think that there should be a better way of allocating places.

I agree that the existing process is unfair but in the absence of a machine that measures true intellence or a test that you can't possibly be tutored for I don't see what can be done to make the whole selection process fairer.

OP posts:
seeker · 23/05/2012 10:04

Yep. And parents who for whatever reason can't support their children through the 11+ are so going to be able to find an independent school that offers 100% bursaries and apply for one!

This is the first time I have heard the suggestion that the unfairness of the 11+ can be mitigated by sending disadvantaged children to independent schools!

pickledsiblings · 23/05/2012 09:59

Some of those FSM kids that are bright Seeker may be better off applying for a bursary at a suitable independent school. Their chances of getting in may be higher as the entrance exams are normally not published so can't be prepared for.

seeker · 23/05/2012 09:46

At ds's primary school 17% of children are on FSM. A bit higher than the national average, but about there. The same % in the local high school. Sub 2% in the grammar school.

So unless you are going to tell me that disadvantaged children are somehow inherently less intelligent than more well off ones, there is something wrong with the system that made that happen.

Bonsoir · 23/05/2012 09:29

Yes, I said the system may be unfair (I disagree that it is unfair purely on the grounds of ability to pay. Absolutely every single little thing about life is unfair on those grounds!).

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 09:27

Bonsoir - The system IS unfair in that the odds are stacked in favour of people who have money. Not that this opinion stops me from using money to give my kids an advantage :)

OP posts:
Hullygully · 23/05/2012 09:13

No one, it's not either or. I'm saying there are a lot where that is the circ (that I know of, anyway, inc my dcs).

Metabilis3 · 23/05/2012 09:12

@hullygully it may be the reality of your DC's grammar. It isn't the reality of my DD's grammar. Who is to say which is more representative?

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 09:11

Hully - I know a number of poor Indian, Vietnamese and Chinese parents whose children went on to go to Uni. and became professionals. I accept it doesn't help but kids don't fail academically BECAUSE they are poor.

OP posts:
Bonsoir · 23/05/2012 09:11

I repeat: there is nothing at all unfair or dishonest about parents paying for private primary, or tutors, or an expensive house, in order to get a decent free education for their DCs. It is in the interest of all concerned that parents should encourage their DCs in every way possible to further their education.

What may be unfair, in some areas of the country, are limited educational choices.

JustGettingByMum · 23/05/2012 09:04

Exotic - I hear what you're saying, but the reality is, that is changing. The introduction of the btecs for the more practical is giving schools the opportunity to restructure the curriculum. Eg at the school my DS attends, those taking the btec take reduced number of GCSEs and have timetabled general extra help sessions (not sure what they're called)
Plus the school does not insist on students taking MFL to GCSE.

The more academic students take 11 GCSEs and perform very well.

Hullygully · 23/05/2012 08:58

Hand - that's why I said "a lot" and not "all"

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 08:56

People don't have much money. They pay for primary and hope it is an investment for free secondary.

HandMadeTail · 23/05/2012 08:55

At my DD's grammar, she was one of 3 in a class of 27 to come from a private school.

The reality of one grammar is not the same as the reality of all grammars.

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 08:52

They still expect them to take the same exams. They still expect the same academic hoops- there is no value on the practical. They have to do a foreign language when they can't manage English!

Hullygully · 23/05/2012 08:51

See above Poosh.

You have no idea.

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 08:50

I would call their chances remote- maybe not in the past but certainly today.

Hullygully · 23/05/2012 08:50

But they do stream them exotic

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 08:49

The problem with comprehensives is that they treat everyone the same. I went to a secondary modern and they didn't. They had those who should have been in grammar school at the top and those who couldn't read at the bottom and they taught them accordingly.I wish that comprehensives would do the same.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 08:49

... I should add that I think that the odds are stacked against kids from a poor background but I wouldn't describe their chances as 'remote'. Eton or Harrow maybe but not the local GS.

OP posts:
Hullygully · 23/05/2012 08:47

In my dc's grammar the kids are 90% from private school.

And what's interesting is the attitude of the parents. Entitled? dear lord.

And these parents are so rich, but they are getting something for nothing and they are just THRILLED. And they have spent a fortune on tutoring to shoehorn them in.

Just saying. This is the reality of a lot of grammars.

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 08:47

I am being unfair- I am pro comprehensives knowing I can 'pay' for a good one. The system is unfair and am making full use of it.At the same time I am saying it is unfair to pay for a tutor. It is hypocritical- but it did well by my DCs.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 08:47

Apologies seeker. I appeared to have incorrectly filled in the blanks.

I was talking about about black youths and crime and gangs. I then talked about living in SE London and how the schools were crap and how GS were a means of saving some of these poor black kids.

These points were made over a number of posts and it was therefore not obvious what my theme was. I now accept that you was responding to my point about 'poor' kids as opposed to 'poor black kids'.

But my question, albeit an ammended one still stands. Why do you think poor kids, white or otherwise, don't stand the remotest chance of getting into a GS?

OP posts:
breadandbutterfly · 23/05/2012 08:40

All schools should provide the best possible education for the children in their care.

But not all chilldren would benefit from or enjoy a grammar school education, it is extremely suitable for those who want an academic education - but lots of kids have little interest in this as well as little aptitude.

We should be ensuring that the less academic go to excellent schools that cater for their abilities and interests - but equally we should allow those of an acadeic bent to get a good academic education in grammar schools designed for that purpose. Not everyone can be a university lecturer or teacher or whatever or needs to be or wishes to be - but grammar schools provide an important opportunity for those genuinely interested in academic study to get this.

I teach non-academic 16-18 year olds and they are not disadvantaged by not being at a grammar school. Nor by the fact that grammar schools exist to teach their more academically-minded peers. They are disadvantaged by the poor standard of vocational education in this country. That is what needs to be improved.

There is no point in getting rid of schools that teach academic subjects very well - that does not help the non-academic at all. What they need is a respected system that will teach them in a way that interests them and allows them to get a good and well-paying job afterwards. We need something more akin to the German system, where good vocational educational is a core part of the system.

Comprehensive schools where everyone is made to fit into the same round hole no matter whether they are a square or triangular peg help almost no-one. There is nothing wrong with differentiated education - in fact it is the ideal - as long as all parts of the system are equally well-resourced and respected and lead to positive (but different) outcomes.

Fundamentally, children are not identical and treating them as if they are benefits no-one.

seeker · 23/05/2012 08:38

"seeker - re your comment about poor black kids not having the remotest chance of getting into a GS, according to your earlier posts its committed parents that is the key and not tutoring.

Are you saying here that black kids don't stand a chance because they are black or because black parents aren't committed to the education of their children?"

PooshTun- please point me to where I said this.

Bonsoir · 23/05/2012 08:37

exoticfruits - you are confusing who and what is "unfair" (versus your last post). Are parents being unfair or dishonest? No. Is the system unfair or dishonest? Perhaps.