Another thread about tutoring

PT, sorry my post may have been confusing because I was referring to an earlier post.

I am in favour of one to one tutoring some of the time for children who are exceptionally able. That would be a child whose ability in, for example, maths was so far ahead of any peer group in their locality that they would be better suited to having some undergraduate level teaching. I also think that certain children need one to one, or very small group, tuition in art.

I am also in favour of selecting approx the top and bottom 10% either through superselectives or within comps through setting. I am not in favour of grammar schools that take 25-30% of children because I think it has a damaging impact on children in other schools. I also think there should be opportunities to move up to a superselective in years 9 and at the start of sixth form.

I am not in favour of setting of children who fall within a broad, middle ability range because I attended two comps - one with sets and one without and felt that the learning experience was better in mixed ability form groups. Setting of children who aren't at either end of a bell curve seems to concentrate disruptive pupils into certain sets, which is damaging for the other children in the same set.

Nope. But my niece is starting med school in September from one. Another niece just finishing her PhD. A dp with a good degree from
a Russell group. And so on. Your point?

seeker - have you had a very able child in a comprehensive school?

Any actual evidence? Or is it just "it is because I say so"? Because I could say 'No it isn't because I say it isn't" but I wouldn't do that because it would be silly,

@seeker Because they are. I was. And things have got a lot worse since my day.

I can't understand why people think that the academically able are held back in comprehensive schools.

Serves you right for spouting nonsense

@hullygully My DS goes to the local comp. Nobody there feels second class. They aren't second class. It's a great school. My DD1 goes to a superselective GS which is the only one in the LEA so, not really local (it takes an hour on the bus). They accelerate the kids, they all do their exams in Y10, and they get among the very very best results in the country, year in, year out. These are seriously hard working kids. I know some comps accelerate their top streams but by all accounts results aren't necessarily great and it sets the kids apart in their school context. My DD1 was badly bullied at primary school for being different (conspicuously academic and 'swotty' yet also conspicuously having an SEN (dyspraxia) which led many of the kids to believe she 'shouldn't' be getting all the top marks etc and was just a teachers favourite not actually clever because, hey, she couldn't walk through a door reliably without smacking into the frame). If my DD1 was at the comp she would be as miserable as sin because the 4 or 5 kids who made her life hell at primary school are all there. She is blissfully happy at the GS. DS on the other hand was very happy at the comp up until Easter - he hasn't been at school all term because of whooping cough so it remains to be seen whether he is happy when he goes back and has to catch up.

@seeker it is most definitely NOT a case of what's good for my child and everyone else can go get the mumps. Because I have a child at each sort of school. It's a case of letting each child have an appropriate education for their own requirements, and not sacrificing the sort of child that will do well in a superselective on the altar of 'all shall have prizes'.

You never hear people whining about PE making kids feel like second class citizens. In my experience, that is the ONE issue that really does do that. But the bullies are usually good at it, and have kids who are good at it, so that's allowed.

Now i'll have to go and look up every single country and education system.

I may be some time.

"Most countries do not have two tier systems and they appear to be doing fine."

No, Hully, most countries have multiple systems and most of the older educational systems are underperforming.

yy or send them on short courses to universities etc

I'd have specialist one to one teaching some of the time for truly exceptional children, not the top 10 or 20%.

I would have smaller classes and sets and setting within sets and differentiated work and sport EVERY DAY and yoga and lessons about how life works and peace and love and meditation and organic food and music, dancing and art.

Hully, I agree, although I'd prefer a special school to a unit. A lot of disruption is persistent low level though and is a matter of school behaviour policies and how effectively they are implemented and supported.

A lot of support for setting and splitting children up seems to be an attempt to get away from either problem behaviour, poor school environments and poor teaching. I don't think the purpose of grammar schools can be to remove a few children from a bad situation.

Setting by behaviour, now that's an idea.

yes, if needed

Would you also have specialised one-to-one for the children who are brighter than all their peers?

I would also absolutely kick out the disruptive ones to a unit where they get specialised one to one and counselling for whatever ails them.

Whether you have mixed classes or sets, the disruptive children are still going to be in the school disrupting somebody's education. Setting is by ability or attainment, not behaviour.

Most countries do not have two tier systems and they appear to be doing fine.

The elite have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is.

The first year of secondary, when they were waiting to set us for the second year, was pretty much a complete mess. Quite frankly I feel sorry for teachers who are trying to teach say french to kids some of whom remember what they did at primary - and some who can't remember mon, ma, mes, ton, ta, tes, son, sa, ses however hard they try (it was one of my friends - and I spent half an hour trying to help her remember them). Kids with different aspirations in the same class was enlightening - 'boring' kids like me, and ones who were already drinking and having sex behind the youth club aged 11. The kids who were bright did absolutely sod all or worked and got bullied (and those that did sod all to avoid the bullying got into such bad habits that they found it hard to throw them off).

Would I have been better at a grammar school - yes without a doubt. I left primary loving learning, with unusually high concentration levels, and so enthusiastic about secondary school. I left secondary having done well thanks to transferring to a private grammar for 6th form. But 5 years doing the minimum amount of work so that any success was seen as one up on the teachers left its mark (I did homework / coursework in the morning during registration, fell asleep in lessons from boredom, read magazines etc!). I have never been able to apply myself diligently again - the habits got ingrained.

And would my friend not have spent hours in frustrated tears, if not comparing herself to me and the others who found it easy - again probably yes.

My mother went to a girls grammar school in the 1950s - and from low achievement families with no background in university education, the opportunities and confidence those girls got was brilliant. I also know of people of that generation who were transferred over from the 'secondary moderns'.

If there were more grammar schools, then surely the tutoring would get less crazy, and the kids who were from disadvantaged backgrounds would get more of a look in. I can see the difference between my mother who was in a grammar school area, and her cousins who were not - and it is amazing. As I understand it the 50s were the time of greatest social mobility and aspirations - and maybe we should be thinking of that as a proportion - as not everyone can be, nor should they be pushed to be, academically successful.

Then why have grammars?