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!!!

If putting money in to try and get better results is cheating then surely the biggest issue is private and public schools.

And so I suppose is trying to get your child into a school with better results than the one with poor results down the road.

If putting money in to try and get better results is cheating then surely the biggest issue is private and public schools.

Don’t forget buying a house in the catchment for the best comprehensive. That’s what the family of a child in DS’s class have done. Given that we’re in London, family homes in that neighbourhood are around £1 million, which puts the £800 or so we’ve spent on DS’s tutor (he only started at Easter) into perspective. (BTW I’m not judging this family. We’d do the same if we could…)

I do think the system is shit, but you can’t blame individual families for engaging with it. I think the schools could do more to make the tests “tutor proof” and a more accurate assessment of innate ability if they truly wanted to, but the status quo of selecting children with the most well-off, engaged and ambitious parents obviously suits them quite well.

Well exactly.

Getting aggravated with parents to trying to do the best for their children is.. well I mean it's human nature isn't it. No parent will choose a terrible school over a good one. And now the results are published it's pushed that way out of control.

In many areas the schools are all perfectly fine. But there's desperation to get into the one that is half a percent higher type thing.

The idea of looking at what else the school offers/ is like and what is best fit for your child also gets undermined.

The real solution is good schools across the board. And an end to the imo unfair ability for schools to select children in other ways. More of a problem in some areas than others.

When the difference in results university and eventual roles for private public Vs everyone else is the way it is now

I think griping about individual parents getting tutors is the wrong target by miles!

I don't know if the OP is coming back (wouldn't blame her if she didn't) but I think this thread amply demonstrates why you chat about these issues at your peril...

Grammar schools used to be for those with natural ability. I can understand wanting your son to get into a better school, but is tutoring and coaching children at such a young age really helpful? I think that all children need down time to process what they have learned. If he enjoys it, then fair enough. If it's a chore, I would leave it. You may find that being in a school where most are above average is a confidence knocker, whereas your DS night thrive in a school where he is then average or above. Also, by tutoring I think that you are piling on the pressure and an expectation to pass.

@Phineyj I am still reading these with interest, but you are quite right, I do understand it better now

Grammar schools it's all different now as well though.

Many areas don't do it. Used to be widespread I think across the country?

Some round here called grammar aren't. We're not a grammar school area. They are 'super selective' some have changed their names some not.

If a child is clever but not been exposed to the type of questions then they will still be disadvantaged. Some schools cover that some don't. Some parents do it anyway. Is non verbal reasoning a part of tests? That sort of thing. I like them anyway so have done with kids for fun. If never seen one before then you're off to a massive disadvantage.

And with a non grammar area they all have different exams

It's a big old mess really.

Interesting prog on grammar schools. Can't remember who presented he'd been to one and got to good uni etc.

The idea that stopped the system being the norm was it was unfair and classified children into different opportunities young and on exam.

He said what's happened now. When they were going there was some social mobility. Now that's vanished (maybe he said gone backwards).

Difficult and emotive area.

I think the programme was 'The Secret Life of Grammar Schools', Channel 4? It was interesting but not too balanced as I remember, because of course some people who "failed" the 11+ were bitter, even decades later, and people who "passed" weren't keen to admit the element of luck (and that's the ones willing to be interviewed...)

It was actually that programme that spurred me to look into the history of it and look up the debates in Hansard etc.

Having taught in a superselective grammar, you do get a high performing team effect and it is a nice environment for genuinely clever students who can be themselves. There were very, very few students who struggled academically, whether or not they'd been tutored.

It's definitely a case of fitting the right school to the student. I did think the long commutes many students had reduced the school experience for some.

It's very hard to separate "natural ability" from family background, attitude to learning, previous learning and confidence. You certainly can't do it with a single test on a 10 or 11 year old.

No that wasn't it. I'll try to find it.

It was presented by a. Politician? Serious type of TV presenter?

Can't find it sorry

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.

It would only be boastful if you were trying to impress others with the time/effort/money you are putting into trying to get your child in. I don't know how it could be considered boastful about your child's ability if you are admitting that they need a tutor to have a chance of passing, which is why people don't admit to it, because they want others to think their child is naturally very able.

At the primary my children were at it was

Discussed openly
Names of good tutors shared
General acceptance that the selective schools round here are incredibly hard to get into and so it was a punt and not getting in was not a fail as it were. More well let's give it a go. Most children weren't given message it was be all and end all etc.

What exactly do posters mean by «natural ability» ? This smacks of the false meritocracy - the idea that people succeed (or not) solely by their own «hard work» or «abilities» and which conveniently overlooks genetics, social capital, early exposure to books / culture / ideas, family background, socioeconomic resources, positive role models, «good» primary schools, high expectations of teachers and other influential people in a child’s life etc etc?

@workwoes123

What exactly do posters mean by «natural ability» ? This smacks of the false meritocracy - the idea that people succeed (or not) solely by their own «hard work» or «abilities» and which conveniently overlooks genetics, social capital, early exposure to books / culture / ideas, family background, socioeconomic resources, positive role models, «good» primary schools, high expectations of teachers and other influential people in a child’s life etc etc?

Natural ability, I would say is mostly genetics. I was good at maths at school, for example, I didn't have to particularly work at it. Of course my parents encouraged this and I went to a good school which would also have played its part. Other people were equally good at maths but had to work much harder to achieve than I did. Equally, I was never going to be an Olympic gymnast no matter how hard I worked and how much I was nurtured, I just don't have enough natural ability.

Loads of children are bright inquisitive. Have certain things they are really good at.

Most don't get the opportunity to fulfill their potential. Many don't even get the opportunity to find the thing that they would be naturally good at.

That's the real issue.

But with the education system the way it is. Little social mobility. Private/ public school types having massive advantages pretty much irrespective of ability etc.

Then loads of parents will do the best they can with what they have for their children. And that's totally understandable.

The awful thing is the children who could be great. Living in shit circs/ chaotic homes/ areas with real issues. Just pretty much never becoming what they could be.

'Natural ability, I would say is mostly genetics.'

Who we are is a big mashup and pot luck. A mix going back and from many people.

You were adept at maths due to your genetics. Which of your ancestors are you thinking of?

@workwoes123

What exactly do posters mean by «natural ability» ? This smacks of the false meritocracy - the idea that people succeed (or not) solely by their own «hard work» or «abilities» and which conveniently overlooks genetics, social capital, early exposure to books / culture / ideas, family background, socioeconomic resources, positive role models, «good» primary schools, high expectations of teachers and other influential people in a child’s life etc etc?

When I think of natural ability I mean those children who would do best on the tests if none of the children taking them had ever seen a test paper before. I think of the children who got into grammar schools back in the days when all children took them and nobody was coached in how to do them, and grammar schools played a large part in social mobility. Those children who may have come from poorer backgrounds, often with parents that were not well educated, but the 11+ identified their potential.

They wouldn't though.

I don't know what the tests comprised but being familiar with certain things is a massive advantage.

My example earlier was non verbal reasoning. It's a huge advantage to have seen them before.
Knowing how the marks correlate to the length of the answer.
What sort of things the questions are after.
Having been taught the relevant maths principles.
Having an idea of what exam conditions involve and keeping an eye on time.
I mean loads of things.
Being able to read and write to a certain level.

And it's only measuring certain things and in a pretty blunt way.

The best solution is very expensive and removes the advantages that the powerful and wealthy have. So it's not going to happen!

I really hate the way primary schools can still select via proxy requirements.

I mean it's a totally unfair system round here at least.

And being 'bright' is only one part of what makes a person successful.

Loads of kids are bright as well. Their opportunity is mainly to do with other factors.

I think many are reluctant to talk about their dc having a tutor for the 11+ because as a pp said, the dc are in direct competition with each other and every parent wants to think (and more importantly wants other parents to think) that their dc passed on their own merit. To admit you got a tutor is saying that you think your child might not be able to pass on their own.

I didn't get a tutor for any of mine because the first was extremely self motivated and he wanted to do the work by himself. The other two were lazy and cried and moaned about homework, so tutoring wouldn't have been money well spent IMO. I also found some parents to be very sneery and outwardly judgemental towards those parents who did get tutors, which is another reason perhaps why people don't want to mention it.

@dontstealmymagnolias

I think many are reluctant to talk about their dc having a tutor for the 11+ because as a pp said, the dc are in direct competition with each other and every parent wants to think (and more importantly wants other parents to think) that their dc passed on their own merit. To admit you got a tutor is saying that you think your child might not be able to pass on their own.

I didn't get a tutor for any of mine because the first was extremely self motivated and he wanted to do the work by himself. The other two were lazy and cried and moaned about homework, so tutoring wouldn't have been money well spent IMO. I also found some parents to be very sneery and outwardly judgemental towards those parents who did get tutors, which is another reason perhaps why people don't want to mention it.

This was true in the Tiffin area of SW London. Parents denied tutoring yet at the open evening every boy I asked said they'd had a tutor for two years! Bless their little honest hearts.

On MN, I sense much condemnation if people aren't quietly pushy behind closed doors. A lot of ppl are very invested in nagging their teenagers to do better and will openly say it's negligent not to move heaven & Earth to try to get offspring to achieve their best.

For me, I don't have the energy to be a Tiger Mum. I choose to have a good relationship with DC at least I can do that. I don't have charismatic powers to be both pushy & have teenagers that want to talk to me.

In local area, I barely know anyone who should be described as pushy parent. I only remember one parent ever mention Tutoring (in 17 years). Many local parents openly say they sent their kids to local (mediocre, failing) secondary "because I wanted to keep them close." The few ppl who obviously shun the local academically-weak schools are oddballs.

I don't think it is the tutoring itself that is the issue, it's admitting that your child is bright enough to stand a chance at getting in.

I think your initial post was true - it is fine to celebrate achievement in sport, music etc in this country, but to recognise cleverness - especially when it comes without the appearance of any particular hard work - is frowned upon in this country.

Both my DCs are bright. We almost tried to hide it at school because we were looked at as pushy parents.

We committed the ultimate sin and put them in for 11+ exams at private schools - because they were the schools that we felt best suited our children and the needs and interests. We were lucky we could afford it. Being clever is celebrated. Hard work is recognised. They are not bullied for being interested in their school work.