In thinking Private Tutors may be considered 'unfair'

[pingu2209]

I am not wishing to be contentious, but the thread on private or state education certainly got people thinking.

But what about private tutors?

There was a (sad I know) Radio 2 programme an age ago about private tutors not being fair in a grammer school area. That children whose parents could afford private tutors have an unfair advantage over those that didn't. Apparently a high percentage of grammer school children were privately tutored before they took their 11+ exam.

Personally I use a private tutor for my DS1 but that is for his SEN, because the state system is so shockingly crap at meeting SEN needs.

It is a bit tough luck.

If you can't afford a tutor, you can't afford a tutor. If your kid doesn't make the cut then they go to a state school that MN is always banging on about are so great.

I don't think it's fair the Queen's car can park where it likes and I get tickets. Tough tits.

maypole1 I didn't say it was fair, frankly it's not. I live in an 11 plus area and the only comprehensive around is faith based so not right for us. It was pass the 11plus, lie about religion , pay school fees or move. Tutoring for the exam was a no brainer for us. Not sure I understand your point.

My daughter has two tutors, to help her through two of the four A Levels she's about to sit, (at State School).

I consider this money well spent, if she passes and is happy with her results.

Sorry, but I'd do anything I can to help her, without worrying whether she has an unfair advantage over anyone else....

Maybe make it compulsory to admit to tutoring, and then lower their exam scores by a certain amount to make schools and university admissions fairer?

Any skill that a child gets taught at home (by whomever) could be considered an "unfair" advantage. Maybe we should ban learning all together in the interests of fairness?

In theory private tutoring does not seem any more unfair for kids without sen than for kids with sen. Many schools are crap with kids with sen, but plenty are crap with bright kids too.

Uneven preparation for the 11 plus undermines what it is supposed to try and achieve (grading of children's academic potential in order to select the x% most likely to achieve high grades in a grammar school). But that is really a problem with the competitive entry approach to grammar schools than with the fact some children study more than others. There are all sorts of ways people will game a competitive system. If entry was based on meeting a set ability that had been shown to be sufficient to benefit from the type of education offered there wouldn't be the same emphasis on hot housing.

Do selective examinations measure ability or skills?

i don't know why schools can't pinpoint children who are able to go to grammar school - it seems fairer than testing

I know I did ask on the other thread if all selection is bad then by default you would want special schools closed down to .

Some may be giving their child tutoring because of 11plus. But some give tutoring because their child is behind and the wonderful sate school they bang on about cannot support the child enough

southeastastra because a child may have only been at a school a short time , because the child who neverputs their hand up or mucks about actually may be very clever , because some teachers assumptions are based on race or class ( their have been studies to show etchers often over estimate their Asian students grades and under ester mate their black students ) its not done derliberlty but has been show to happen

Also not all teachers are good their are a fair few week teachers knocking about

Because you have to learn to perform on the day when their at uni their not going to pick the ones who they think will do well you will have to do the exam and if you don't pass you won't pass

that seems farier than selecting children who are tutored! half an half then

to be honest surely if your child need tutoring they shouldn't be trying to get in. seems weird set up to me

Not really usane bolt is the fastest man in the world he tar ins to be even faster sometimes same applies with tutors

Also very often if you have a bright child the state schools with their 32 in a class can not challenge a child that is ahead and has to work at a slower pace to accommodate everyone else its not really had to work

The sate fails those that are behind and those who are ahead

My friend uses a private tutor as her dd struggles with maths. Originally she came to bring her dd up to the level she should have been at as her year group had fallen behind and she was due to move to private school and would have struggled with out the extra help. The only reason my friend realised how far behind her dd was at maths was when she taught my dd's class as supply and spoke to my dd about it all. The whole year group had been left behind by 2 lazy teachers who never taught the maths. Quite a few from that school move on to the private school before P7 so a group of them hired a tutor and did extra in the summer holidays.

My ex employer used a tutor for her dyslexic son who'd fallen behind. He was bright but struggling and it was just to make life easier. He despised being tutored numerous times a week but it helped him with the skills to get through uni and understand more about techniques which worked for him.

southeastastra Because the 11plus is not covered by the national curriculum, children who have never seen the form the questions in reasoning and non verbal reasoning take are at a disadvantage. My dd's state school did one set of practice test papers with them and that was it. A lot of the private schools round here advertise the fact that they prepare their pupils for the 11plus. Tutoring is one way of evening up your child's chances of exam success. Not fair but you need to be realistic.

But it still boils down to sour grapes the fact you cannot afford it so don't want anyone else to have it.

maypole1 Sorry, what is it that I can't afford and don't want anyone else to have?

I don't know about individual schools but the local grammer to us gives tests on verbal and mental reasoning which is impossible to 'coach' or 'fake' Tutors can go through practice papers to help the children become familiar with them as they're not like other school work or tests they will have done but you can get them easily on line or in Waterstones if you wanted your child to practice.

Its crazy to take the stance unless the state provides it its unfair

Its also pretty stupid position to take as said on here already many parents have children who are behind its not about 11plus and if these wonderful state schools could provide the one to one support every week for the full 5 years at primary I am sure they would rather do that than pay but as people know the state cannot provide this.

I think some on here would fit in very well in cuba were the doctor get paid the same as the bin man

You don't need to have any special skills to tutor for 11+ .A parent can easily do it.most bright kids don't need to be taught techniques anyway, they just need practice to speed up.

I don't know if OP has a point because my undersatnding of the tests is as per my above post. However, if it is the case that heaps of expensive tutoring will get them in then I think OP has a right to complain because these school are state funded meaning that OP is paying for them.

Sue 52 my post was not aimed at you It was aimed at southeastastra

Oops, sorry maypole1.

wow take my comment way out of context if it suits you