Why is it not ok to have openly high expectations of DC

[Tigersteakpie]

Ok so I've been thinking about this all day and I'm still not sure about the psychology behind this.

We are in a grammar school area, not super competitive but you know. It's grammar school.

My eldest DS is about to go into y5. We have started some home tutoring over the summer (using an online 11+ prep thing) and from December onwards he'll be tutored 1:1 once a week as well.

Our DS is not a genius, he's probably slightly above average. But he works hard and has a good attitude. We are keen for him to go to grammar school if he can. We are not pushing it on him at all, but the grammar schools are significantly better than the comprehensives around here, so naturally we'd like him to go of possible.

I'd say that around 50% of his classmates are also being tutored either by parents/online things or by actual tutors.

But there seems to be this unspoken rule that it's NEVER EVER DISCUSSED. Not even if there are a group of say 3 of us together who all are in the same boat, tutoring and begining to prep to take the 11+.

It's almost like it's boastful to even say you are taking it? To admit that you'd hope your child might stand a chance? To admit that actually you would quite like your DC to do well if they can.

On the flip side he also plays a sport. He's pretty good and plays for a localish team that do quite well. There is a LOT of talk about how well the DC do at sports/musical things/extra curricular things.

I just don't get it. Is it just where I live? It's not even as if it's me talking about it loads so people openly avoid it. It's just never mentioned!!!

I think you will understand better the reasons, as you go down the path.

It all seems very matter of fact now, but the stress will begin to tell. That's because 11+ is designed for those who think academically, abstractly and quickly, but you can actually give yourself a better chance, as a candidate, by practising more. The more you practice, the better, and faster you get: some questions come up in a similar form, again and again ( especially VR) and kids can get to recognise them. That's why some parents, with experience, start their kids in Year 4, or end of Year 3. Many determined parents, have their kids do a practice paper virtually every day. A tutor once a week, may come to seem not enough, and you are going to wonder if the better option would have been the group teaching model, where the competitive element will kick in and spur on. But you may not look me yourself for wanting to work on your child's zeal to succeed by putting him in a competitive preparation group with mocks etc., even thought such an approach will give many kids the edge.

And some 1:1:tutors may feel the pressure to get your child through.

11+ is not at all child-centred or person-affirming; the standard is like a high jump bar to be cleared; it isn't like a teacher shaping the lesson to the child's interests and guiding their natural curiosity to learn. The standard is amazingly high because of the small number of places and mass of applicants. Some parents think their kid will pass, because they themselves did, or would have done, but that isn't the case: you can be academic, but still not get in.

The process of preparing is one fraught with conflicting feelings and aspirations. At the end of the day, many families would rather go it alone, and not discuss it, as the process is ruthlessly competitive, and little Johnny will feel bad if Little Alfie and Edgar pass, and they've chatted about the questions for months, and he is the one of the three who fails. It he may feel put off when preparing, if his mates are finding the questions easier than he does - it might put him off wanting to try. And it might be the right, and not the 'wrong 'environment for academic little Johnny, who now wants to get in, of his own accord, but.....sadly, isn't quite successful enough for such a high standard.

The grammar schools are 'significantly better' than the other schools because they take the most competitive pupils and families, therefore skewing overall results.
Think it through, OP!

I went to a grammar school - I didn't have any tutoring to get in but others did. And you're right OP, we had great results (for GCSEs at least, A levels were a bit more ordinary) and very high standard of behaviour. But it wasn't great for those who were at the bottom end of the the class - in another school they would have been towards the top of the pack but at our school they were at the bottom and struggling. Our teachers weren't focused on supporting the least able, more on stretching the most able. I wasn't much good at science and the only reason I passed my GCSEs was that my parents bought me a revision guide and I pretty much memorised it.

Also, paying for tutoring to get into grammar school upsets the principle of fair play - in an ideal world, grammar schools should be for the most academically able, not those who can afford to pay for tutoring to do better at the exam. In that sense it could be seen as "cheating", so I can see why it doesn't get spoken about, even if everyone is doing it.

I had a tutor because I was a bit thick. Maybe people are worried others will think that of their kid 😂

At our primary school the parents talked about tutoring and which schools etc non stop!

@Spottysausagedogs

People can get quite uppity about it for different reasons depending on their financial circumstances and the academic prowess of their child. It seems like an emotive and contentious issue. With sports I would say that effort and hard work are praised, but money never usually comes into it much. Whereas academic progression can be "enhanced" somewhat with the addition of money, which some people just don't have. This can lead to them feeling guilty that they aren't doing the best they can for their child's future. Bit like private school, you wouldn't discuss it with people who couldn't afford it, and for people who can afford it there probably isn't that much of a discussion anyway. Add in that there an be an attitude (possibly coming from certain school cultures) that you just shouldn't use tutors, that if your child is clever enough they would just pass the 11+ without tutoring, and somehow getting them extra help is cheating the system. Plus it is competitive isn't it? If the other parent you know has found a fantastic tutor on the cheap, they won't want to tell you anything about it! So it's all a bit clandestine for a few reasons, and you never know which side of the fence people fall on when discussing these things so sometimes better to avoid the subject.

100% this.

I’m not sure why you’re even asking - it’s obviously because your child will be in direct competition with their child!

To throw the competition off the scent.
To hedge your bets in case your kid does not get in
Because it is crass.

Admitting that your little darling had extensive tutoring and prep which cost money rather undermines the idea that we live in a meritocracy. It makes it so much harder to admit that life is really unfair for those without money and that for the overwhelming majority success is intimately tied to privilege.

It's because you're in a grammar school area.

Fini.

I'm quite honest about sending my children to a rural comprehensive.

And paying for tutoring, Sailing and a horse.

But I don't pretend there's anything else going on.

My kids primary school is great I have no desire for them to go anywhere else, but let's face it no upper class person or politician ever attend a standard school they're all privately educated. A class of 30 kids with basic funding realistically will struggle to compete with a small private achool class of 10-15 kids with parents who can throw money into education. Money plays a bit part of a kids future.

No @Asherline that's not the game now.

Independents are looked on less favourably, and hothousing even less so.

@ShrikeAttack I've never heard of the term hothousing so probably not completely sure what you mean, but I've googled it. I just mean for me I have a son who is young but I know he's going to be practical and all I want is they do what makes them happy. But even Boris Johnson had more money than I will ever have before he was born. He didn't become the PM by being born on a council estate and workign his way up. Trump became president because he was a billionaire.

Its because deep down we want other people to think that our children are smart because they inherited good genes from us, their parents. When really, they're sort of average which suggests that we are sort of average too.

I don't think it's boastful. I actually think it's the opposite. Think about it from the child's standpoint. Suppose the entire neighbourhood knew that your parents were hiring tutors and pulling out all the stops to help you get into a more academically competitive school. Then suppose you don't get in. The entire neighbourhood knows you were trying to and had a lot of help, so now the entire neighbourhood knows that you're too dumb for grammar school despite all that help. That may not be what the neighbourhood is actually thinking, but that's how it will seem to an 11-year-old. Even if you've talked with him and he agrees with you that it's better to try and fail than not try, that doesn't mean he wants his entire circle of friends to know all about it. Maybe that's not true of your child, but it's probably true of some of theirs. Their refusal to discuss what measures they're taking, or even admit to taking any, could be a reasonable attempt to protect their child's privacy.

IMHO it’s because British people want / like to give the impression that the believe in and value ideas like equality and meritocracy… but not so much that they would actually go against human nature and not try to give their own children every advantage to get ahead of the pack.

America is similar, with its firm belief in meritocracy - which ignores the huge impact of racism, poverty, poor role models etc. It allows the children of wealthier, better connected, high social capital families to succeed and claim that it’s due to their own “hard work” rather than to the massive structural advantages they have.

It’s the same in the U.K. We all know it’s a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest situation and we will do whatever it takes within that system to give our own children the best chance of success. But we also want to be able to claim that we believe in and support “equality”, so we prefer to keep quiet about using things that are available to only some of us (like tutors / grammars, social connections, networking, buying property in specific areas, etc) to get our kids the best advantage we can.

People probably don't mention it because if you think realistically it's ridiculous 9/10yo are having to be tutored during their summer holidays and then through year 6 to get a place in a local school.

It's very socio economically divided too.

Just think - if no one felt the pressure to tutor then the places would be less competitive and those with a true aptitude based on what grammars were meant to be about would get spaces. Not just those with parents who can afford to tutor.

Many don't discuss it because they feel embarrassed to admit they can't afford it. Best to let people think you're tutoring.

The grammar system has changed so much and not for the better.

The grammar schools are 'significantly better' than the other schools because they take the most competitive pupils and families, therefore skewing overall results
Exactly, and the reason so many people will downplay tutoring and other such measures is because they'd rather pretend that their child got into a selective (academically and back door financially) school based on meritocratic rather than because they had money.
Then they'll repeat 'but grammar schools get better results' over and over again as if it's surprising that when a school academically and socially selects to fill their cohort with parents who'll are invested (and will probably also get tutors for GCSEs) they get higher results than a school that's had a proportion of the catchment's children removed.

I'm in favour of high expectations and wanting children to achieve, but find the grammar issue and it's associated faux- meritocracy arguments to be a bit daft.

I was born in England but culturally education is everything to my family as they are not English and it’s perfectly ok to talk about your children’s achievements. I worked in Higher education for 27 years and DH is still there gradually turning in to an eccentric Professor.

Asherline you should check out tiger parenting, I would say my brother and his wife did this to their two daughters. They did both end up at very prestigious American Universities to read for their doctorates.

DH and I tutored DS ourselves and I was stricter than any of DS friends parents. DH is English so it was softened.

The grammar schools have better results because all the dc have been filtered somewhat as do private schools with an entrance exam. Lots of studies show the difference in how dc perform by socio economic, gender and racial groupings.

DC performing at a similar level at primary school split off quite radically by their socio economic group with the middle class DC overtaking. There will always be outliers to data sets before someone comes along with a personal anecdote.

If anyone is genuinely curious about stats and performance have a look at the Office for National statistics.

I found this basic questionnaire about childhood circumstances and educational attainment and your chance of poverty as an adult. It’s not perfect obviously. My chance of poverty came out at 15%.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/educationandchildcare/articles/howdochildhoodcircumstancesaffectyourchancesofpovertyasanadult/2016-05-16

I'm more familiar with the American system than the British one, but I think it's oversimplistic to say selective schools only get better results because they have smarter or more privileged students to start with. Yes, that's a huge part of it. But a student with above-average natural abilities isn't likely to get an education appropriate to their talents at a school where a large majority of students perform below grade level. Even if that school has excellent teachers and the reasons for the low performance are some combination of poverty, parental neglect, and low natural ability - none of which have anything to do with the school - that's still the level the instruction will be geared to. It's naive to think a high-ability student would end up with the same level of knowledge regardless of which school he went to.

I don't think "most" people don't agree with grammar schools

You are so wrong. They don’t improve social mobility at all. Generally, the most “able” year 7 pupils have been tutored to the hilt to pass the 11+. This means that poorer families don’t get the same opportunities.

but they apply because they're the best schools in the area in terms of results so why wouldn't you want the best for your child
In our area the grammar school results far out-shine the local comprehensive results. The schools have less behavioural problems. To be honest they just look like easier places to go to school and achieve your potential

That is because they siphon off the brightest children. It doesn’t make them better schools. You need to look at the Progress 8 score and compare grammar schools against comprehensive schools. This will give you a better picture.
I have just compared DD’s comprehensive school against a high performing grammar school in the next county (we don’t have grammar schools in our county). Grade 5 and above in English and maths GCSE at the comprehensive school is 56% and the grammar school is 91%, BUT the Progress 8 score at the comprehensive is above average (0.17) and only average at the grammar school (0.02)

It’s like comparing apples and oranges

The OP calls the schools that are not Grammar schools in her area comps. OP, in my county, children who do not pass the eleven plus exam go to an upper school or secondary modern. They zre not comps, though many people refer to them as comps. The next county has a truly comprehensive school system and it might surprise you to know that people choose to live in that county father than this ome as they prefer the comprehensive education . The large comprehensive school there is excellent and the 11plus tutoring nonsense that goes on here seems ridiculous

The whole discussion on grammars is also muddied because people know/know of people for whom they had a genuinely meritocratic effect. I picked up a social history book recently at one of those outdoor museums (where they preserve old buildings) and my old school's name caught my eye. The large farming family who'd lived in the rescued building had sent their two girls to grammar in the 50s. Both became senior teachers -- one a headmistress. The mum and dad only had a basic education. The brothers had gone to agricultural college and into the forces.

Grammars are not needed to perform that function any more -- virtually all schools give access to the exams you need to progress and girls are entitled to the same education as boys.

I don’t know much about the 11plus as not from a grammar school area but basically feels like cheating to train them to pass an exam. So if they get in it’s not a sign of their actual intelligence. All seems very unfair to me. So pleased I don’t live in a grammar school area.

I'm not in a grammar area thankfully but there are a few competitive parents here who pay for tutors, and who keep it quiet.

I suppose grammars are inherently very unfair - they filter out the well off pupils and leave the poorer pupils to go to the comps. People keep it quiet because of this. But also because they want everyone to think their dc are so bright they got there without tutoring.