"tutoring for grammar school is cheating". AIBU to be fuming at DSIL's attitude?

[twiceupinarms]

namechange coz as much as I don't care if she reads this, I don't want her to know my normal nickname.
I am getting my DD tutored for grammar school. DSIL thinks it's cheating if she can't get in without being tutored and will therefor struggle when she gets there. for fucksake, the exams are not based on school curriculum - it's like being a brilliant footballer but been trialled to get in the team on your ability to tie your laces. fucksake.
Anyone else encountered this attitude?
Oh I can add hypocrisy to the list? Her DD audtitioned to go to Stage Boarding School. Did she do any practice/preparations for the audition? Only 9 lessons a week, every week, for 6 years.

AIBU to be cross?

I went to a very sought-after university. One of the more horrible aspects of my first year was to see how many students fell apart. Their parents had 'wanted the best' for them and worked tirelessly to procure this 'best'. The young people had attended selective schools or independent schools where they had received vast amounts of help and encouragement. The structures of their childhood were designed to keep them working, competing and achieving. A great many of them, when put in an environment where they were - for the first time - expected to motivate and organise themselves as adults - really, really struggled.

Perhaps sometimes less is more?

I find it ....... interesting .....that whenever I say anything about the 11+ being socially divisive, or that children who fail can suffer in all sorts of ways because of it, or that children who pass can exist in a privileged bubble, I am always told that it's complete nonsense, that I'm projecting my own issues, that I'm the only person who thinks that.

At least nobody who reads this thread will ever be able to say that again!

Well frau I teach in such a university and there is little evidence of that. Most students cope admirably. In fact I also teach in a less selective establishment and the drop out rate/not coping rate is much higher.

I went to what could be described as a sought after university, and to be honest I encountered a lot of people who knew more and had had better opportunities than me (I remember being spectacularly impressed by a girl who said 'oh yeah, Rimbaud.... our Art teacher used to read that aloud to us'), and people who fell to bits, people who thought they were a bit too good to go to seminars, people who were messed up and people who were very clever. HE is an even trickier one than secondary education!

It's odd though, that at 16 we kind of accept that academic selection is necessary and we group together by ability and teach accordingly.

We don't see that as divisive socially. We see it as efficient and just good old common sense.

... and I've taught there too, and seen the same types still there. There are probably as many different ways to mess up and succeed as there are students, really.

Although I have most certainly encountered English Lit students from every kind of school who cannot put a sentence together . Possibly slightly more posh ones who will argue back and say 'yeah, but if it's my opinion it's valid, isn't it?', and slightly more not-posh ones who are terrified of getting anything wrong and don't have enough confidence.

Because at 16 historically, and at 18 still, there is a choice about what path you take, though! At 11, everyone is going to be going to school somewhere, and learning English, Maths and Science with the end goal of getting a range of GSCEs. At 18, it's time to make your mind up, and you choose where you want to go or they choose you based on a much wider range of criteria.

"It's odd though, that at 16 we kind of accept that academic selection is necessary and we group together by ability and teach accordingly.

We don't see that as divisive socially. We see it as efficient and just good old common sense."

That's because not everyone does A levels. And 16 year olds are very different to 10 year olds.

But it's either important for everyone to muck in together or it's not!

The age when it is considered no longer necessary is entirely artificial.

Plenty of people do seem to think selection by exam results at 18+ is unfair and socially divisive. I don't but then I believe in academic selection and segregation at 4+ never mind 11+.

That is just a leeeeeeetle silly, isn't it, wordfactory? Or am I missing something? Or are you being ironic?

Work hard for 5 years, get really good GCSEs and go to the 6th form of your choice V take a test on one day when you're 10 which decides on the next 5 years of your education.

Not really seeker, I mean what would a comp do with my DS?

He's sitting four GCSEs in a couple of weeks, because it would be daft not to. He's 13.

Would he do the same and then sit with 17/18 years olds next year? Surely that wouldn't be appropriate- he hasn't even hit puberty.
Would he just keep on with the GCSEs with his peers? What would be the point of that?

Surely it's better that he's lifted out and educated with others at the smae level so he can be appropriately educated alongside lads his own age?

NO, I don't see that at all - children are children for a limited amount of time, and all sorts of rules and expectations which are appropriate to that time become less so when they grow up. 18 isn't artificial - it's when you're basically grown up. How we approach that period of growing up, and how we get children through to the stage when they're 18 and have to make choices about the rest of their adult life, is key though.

Why would it be daft not to, though? (and why are 17 and 18 year olds doing GCSES, indeed?).

The silly comment was in reference to 16+ education being the same as 11+.

What is he going to do after he does his GCSEs at his current school?

I think it's a bit odd to say that what should obtain at 18 (or 25, or 30) should also be the case at 11, I must say. Unless we argue that it's terribly artificial and silly and not common sense not to just send 11 year olds to work in the City or in a call centre, seeing as that's how society works in the end.

11-18 matters precisely because of what the world's like after 18!

nit I was assuming that once he'd done his GCSE he'd have to go in with the A level students so they'd be 17/18.
Otherwise he'd have to do the GCSE curiculum again. For two years!!!

seeker he will do a mixture of things.
In French for example he will simply continue to learn French with other boys his own age and ability.
He will also learn an extra language and take a GCSE after two years.

It is tailored to each child.

But this takes resources!

And are you saying that something like that would never happen in a comprehensive school?

And it would daft not to sit those GCSEs now because he's more than ready!

The exams themselves are seen almost as a minor irritant by some of the teachers. Get them out of the way and get on with the real business of an education!

On reflection I think the whole issue of coping at university is a different game no to what it was when I was a student. The widening of access has given many more people the opportunity to go to university. However even with less 'sought after' places, there will often have been a lot of parental (or other) pressure to enrol on a degree course. I'm not in a position to know whether better funded universities offer more - or less - pastoral support. But it does seem fairly indisputable to me that some 'hothoused' young people will eventually fall apart. There are times when a so-called 'good' education can be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

I am partly speaking from personal experience, as the child of academic parents, though for me the difficult re-evaluation came after completing academic studies. The business of picking myself up and putting myself together again was long drawn out and - at times - hugely painful.

^It's odd though, that at 16 we kind of accept that academic selection is necessary and we group together by ability and teach accordingly.

We don't see that as divisive socially. We see it as efficient and just good old common sense.^

I don't think it is remotely odd. Education is only compulsory until 16 after which people make their own choices. OTOH, all 11 year olds go on to compulsory secondary education - that is not a choice. There is no obvious reason (except for historical reasons) why that has to be in different institutions for different children. All secondary schools will have children working towards GCSEs in a range of subjects and, indeed, that is what they are judged on - even secondary modern schools

LaQueen- I wasn't trying to imply anything-I was merely reading your words!

I pointed out that your child would be with her own kind in the top sets of a comprehensive- it was you mentioned lunch queues, and parties......

seeker I don't think many comps could have offered DS this.

They simply wouldn't have the critical mass of students in a similar position. I'm sure he could have sat early, but that's not the real point. What happens to DS after this summer is what interests me.

I want there to be a critical mass of students at his age and ability so that he just carry on as normal.