To think it's a nonsense to say you can tutor a child beyond their ability?

[Cortina]

First off I am unusual in that I believe it's possible to get smarter through practice, recent developments in cognitive science have proved this. I also believe seemingly effortless expertise and talent is often hidden practice.

Recently a few I know did well in the 11 plus and gained a place at a grammar school, several also gained places at selective independent schools after exam success. I've overheard gossip that many of this group were 'tutored beyond their ability' and are certain to struggle going forward. This is the sort of sentiment I've also witnessed on Mumsnet.

My view is that intellect can grow 'cells that glow together grow together' and anyway this group have fairly won a place. So why this attitude? Is it sour grapes? For those that believe intelligence fairly static & 'you can't get out what God didn't put in', Grammar and independent schools have sets and stream do they not?

Another thing, as a society we value 'innate ability' and genetically bestowed genius, but should we not value industriousness equally? A 'clever' but lazy child that wastes their time at a selective school is surely less deserving of a place than a 'less clever' hard working one? Should we not also test for suitable disposition?

Posted too soon!

These children are hard workers. As a teacher I always think 'well done them', and am as proud of their acheivements as those of the high flyers.

It doesn't make sense actually, OP. A person cannot be tutored beyond their ability. Either they have the ability - latent or realised - or they don't. If they don't then no amount of tutoring is going to do the job, albeit some can be taught to regurgitate parrot fashion but it's completely fake.

I've read of some pushy parents on this site and others who would benefit from being reigned in before they destroy their children completely. What's the point of it? A person's worth doesn't depend on what they know or what bits of paper they have.

Don't you think though that "tiger parents" are often actually pretty motivated, intelligent (and pushy) achiever types anyway? SO their children are quite likely of average or above average intelligence anyway.
I do agree you can potentially be taught to pass the NVR tests, but maths ones? (I'm in Kent, they do 3 papers and an essay)

Depends what you mean by ability

The ability to rote learn and pass and exam based on limited parameters is not the same as the the ability to go beyond the rote to understanding and creativity

I teach Maths and I would say that there are Mathematicians and those who are good at Maths ... I can teach those good at Maths to pass exams ... but only the Mathematicians can understand and extrapolate beyond that which is taught

I think you can tutor to a particular entrance exam, but without giving braoder support with the result that the child will be lost in an environment where most of the other children are there on the basis of broader ability (either innate or environmentally nurtured or worked for).

Doesn't happen in South London though - the only kids who get into grammers are intelligent and tutored and lucky on the day (or spectactularly naturally gifted, untutored and lucky I guess).

Of course there are naturally bright children, but that doesn't mean less obviously clever children cannot excel. It just means they'll have to put more hours in. And learning from a young age that hard work pays off is no bad lesson for any child.

The real question is how do you judge what a child's potential ability is? There's no way of knowing without giving them a chance to learn and practice. If you think a child has been 'tutored beyond their ability' perhaps you were underestimating that child? I don't mean you the OP, just you in general.

They can be tutored to pass the eleven plus thats for sure.

It's interesting that many thought that Amy Chua's daughters only did well because they had IQs of 150.

Re: A PP that talks about tests for conceptual ability and some doing rather better than expected despite low general sump of ability. Isn't there a danger we miss the point intelligence is composite? I suspect I would have been in the bottom percentile for conceptual ability as it might be tested (I think I have a 'strange' unmeasurable brain :)) The danger then teachers have lower expectations of me than others which will likely as not be fulfilled in the classroom? I would have had low key stage results but be capable of all A stars at GCSE, an anomaly?

We attach high status to certain aspects of intelligence especially logic and maths I think.

Re: work ethic, I think this can be inculcated when young, some parents have a zero tolerance policy to a child refusing to do homework etc. I've seen children who are highly organised and do homework immediately it's set. They have self discipline, routine and home is often organised and secure. The amount of parents who tell me their son simply won't do any work at home and stays on the computer all hours. Talking further it seems up until about age 12 they have never done a jot of work or any learning at home, suddenly Mum can't understand why they won't knuckle down! Not really a surprise. Having said this I haven't been completely successful at inculcating a work ethic in my son.

IME tutoring def makes a difference. I sat the equivalent to GCEs (overseas) in my final year at school and got average grades, certainly not good enough to get me into my university of choice.
My parents then employed tutors for my core subjects and after only 6 months, I resat the exams and got distinctions in every subject I'd had a tutor for.
And this didn't mean I struggled at university, if anything it showed me what my potential could be if I worked at it.

I strongly believe that some kids are naturally gifted and it comes easy to them, but the rest of us poor souls need to work at it. If that means getting a tutor, so be it. Can't see any difference in that to choosing the "best" school for your child in the first place.

Your experience of tutoring Twistee is similar to a good private school with excellent pupil to teacher ratio and excellent specialist teachers. Something similar happened to me with A'levels & it showed me my potential was more than I'd realised.

I think you can tutor them to the top of their ability and show them theatrics and pitfalls of any one test so they spend less time on pitfalls/ working new stuff out.

Problem is then if they go somewhere where they have to always be on full throttle while others are cruising makes it very stressful.

Whatmeworry, their intellect may develop, mine did. You begin to recognise patterns etc and can overtake your peers. A full throttler at 11 might have surpassed peers by 14. Many still believe you've either got it or you haven't at 11 sadly as we're seeing on this thread.

I was seen as lowish ability at 11 and at 14, by 17 I was winning subject prizes but assumed I must be dim as had failed various tests at earlier milestones. I am good at languages but failed an aptitude test for German at 14 so wasn't allowed to take it. I got a prize for one of the best O'levels in French (A) yet my mid-term pre French O level report had said 'Cortina is currently with a very able and highly motivated set, I hope she is able to remain here'.

Many label early on, ok but a bit of a plodder or innately bright. It's not so simple.

Do Grammars not stream any more? Surely if a 'full throttler' passed there should be a place for them with the current elite in the top stream. But things can sometimes change.

Grammars do stream, and they have 1 to 1 mentoring for children who struggle. Children also leave :( One of the girls in DD's year has left to go to the local skankiest comp (there are 3) and she passed the Kent test with no tutoring.
My DD did have tutoring in Maths, her primary (small 1 form intake village) has very poor maths teaching (average child attains under the national average although very much above average in literacy and reading comp, Science etc). Last year she was in group 4 out of 5 in yr 7 grammar, and this year she is in group 3 - so she has learnt and improved and moved up a level/group. Tutoring retaught her the basics and gave her confidence.

However, some of the girls came into group 5 and have remained (and probably half and half were appeal entries (ie failed the actual Kent test). Half though DID pass. No idea on tuturing though (only the ones I actually know from primary)
No idea what my point is :D

A private school near me spends two years tutoring the children for the 11+ exam. The parents are desperate not to pay fees for senior school, so they pay for two years of lessons in school and Saturday mornings for their children to learn how to pass the 11+.

Most do get through it.

It does make me wonder, though, how many would have got in without any tutoring.

When my daughter took hers (yes, she passed) I'd bought a book of past papers. She did them, then sat the exam. I'm not sure what the local school was doing for two years, really.

Exoticfruits has it in a nutshell.

With regard to the 11+, kids can be tutored to pass the exam - but that doesn't mean that they will automatically cope in the fast paced environment of a grammar school.

My DD's passed the 11+ with no tuition and have coped well at school. DS1 had no tutoring and 'failed' ... with intensive tuition he probably would have passed, but there is no way that he would have coped in that environment. As it is he is in top sets at a comp. In a grammar he'd probably be in bottom set and struggling which would impact on his self esteem.

Tutoring people in something might increase their knowledge base, or their ability to do a particular 'thing' but it will not 'change' the overall cognitive performance of an individual. Had my DS1 been tutored, he'd still be the same DS1. I don't think that training him to pass the 11+ would have made him quicker at acquiring concepts in say maths or more able to apply knowledge to abstract situations.

their intellect may develop, mine did. You begin to recognise patterns etc and can overtake your peers. A full throttler at 11 might have surpassed peers by 14

That I absolutely agree with, especially boys.

The DCs that I tutored got their level 4 and I was very proud of them-but this still means that they were way below those who were very good at Maths in the class and didn't need a tutor.
I had a tutor for my DS and French GCSE -the extra tuition was well worth the money and he got a C. He was still weak in French.
If you need a tutor for the 11+ (more than a few sessions) you may well get them a pass mark-but they will still be the weakest in the grammar school.
You can't tutor past their ability-they must have had the latent ability in the first place.
either:

1. The teaching was bad and hasn't been put across in a way they understand.

2.The missed work through ill health etc and have 'building blocks' missing.

1. They have moved schools a lot and got confused with different methods (happened to a very clever friend of mine with a father in the army)

4.They are just a late developer and are not ready to jump through an academic hoop at the right time-they may however race through them later and not only catch up but overtake. (happened to my brother, well below average at 11, passed into the grammar school a year late at 12 and was a high flyer at 13yrs)

1. They have lots of ability but are lazy.
2. They are very intelligent but have a specific difficulty e.g. dyslexia.

I expect there are more reasons that I have missed.

Tutoring only works on what is already there and most specifically if the tutor's methods suit and if the DC is prepared to put in a lot of effort.

Alistron your school situation sounds like it works well for your children but I disagree in that I believe cognitive ability can develop. The brain is like a muscle, you use it & neural pathways develop etc.

Exotic, you believe cognitive ability can improve given your comments on late developers? This is one of my concerns about levelling - and this isn't directed at you Exotic - but given so many believe intellect is essentially unalterable teachers are not really going to expect future A stars from those ending KS2 at level 3 or 4 are they? Of course they'll be delighted if they surprise them but for the most part & especially if there's no marked improvement at 12 or 13 subconsciously or more directly these pupils will pick up that As and A stars are really beyond their potential and unachieveable?

This is a thought provoking discussion !

Here we structure childrens learning based on the belief that "it takes 1000 hours to be an expert".
Fundementally each child is thought to achieve their full potential at this point.
With learning to read for example, at 10 mins concerted effort/planned teaching per day, it takes 1000 weeks, so by age 20.
Some mums frount-load for particular skills they would like to be achieved earlier, for me reading is one, we spedn Ihr a day developing reading ability from the age of 5, anticipating that by age 8.5 the child will be expert readers.

Is there not then a danger that tutoring could become a permanent necessity then for some children? If extra tutoring earned them a place in a very academic school, it may then prove that they can only keep up to the standards required for that school by receiving yet more tutoring.

It is a very complex subject.
My brother was the same boy from the one who failed the 11+ to the one who went into the express stream in the grammar school 2 years later. The ability was always there, an infant teacher remarked that although he appeared slow he had a a good understanding and in year 6 a supply teacher told my parents that his story was way above the standard of many 16yr olds. Most teachers however tended to write him off. He didn't do much at the secondary modern. Suddenly a spark was lit at at grammar school by the Latin teacher and he never looked back. It would have been quite easy for him to coast in the secondary modern without anyone recognising his ability.

My DS1 was similar, in the junior school he was in the bottom maths group and yet came 2nd in the class with the exam! The school wanted to keep him in the lower group because he wasn't good at grasping new concepts and his personality was better being top of a group. The secondary school felt the same and he only went into the top group when he was not only out performing those in the second group but also those in the top group. The ability was always there-he just needed longer to feel confident.

You do DCs a grave injustice if you look at them at 5yrs or 11yrs and predict how they will perform at 16 or 18yrs.

There are people who fail all through school and suddenly blossom as an adult.

Those who show great promise can go the other way-social life, wrong friends etc getting in the way.

It's interesting reading is given priority over number/maths, perhaps because it is deemed essential? You can't access the curriculum without it etc. Our primary insists we should listen to our children read every night come what may & ask comprehension questions. There are no requirements for maths. My maths was always substantionally weaker than my reading/literacy, I did the bare minimum & nothing was reinforced at home.

Rosemary & T are you in the UK? Sounds like Malcolm Gladwell ideas.

5 - I know some who have had a tutor throughout their school careers. The tutor was usually employed to help with a specific weakness & stayed as it was felt they added value. Perhaps no different from parents who help with homework or stimulate & extend their children through every day activities.

The danger is if the parent or tutor becomes a crutch.

I suspect many children have a tutor of some sort during their school years. 'Natural' expertise is often hidden practice.

Cortina, - yes Hampshire / Wiltshre border in England.

Thanks for the reference - shall google M.Gladwell - theorist have informed the ideas that are followed here and I would like to know more about them.

Please do not think your views are unusual, I really like your post and am so pleased you had the confidence to put your views out and see what came back, it takes courage.

Incidently with maths we are far more focused then reading here (writing is ignored completely until age 9 - if they pick a little up at school thats seen as a bonus) but maths is two 45 min slots a day, from age 2.