"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?

'Well, the same number of As and A*s emerge from selective LEAs as emerge from non selective ones. So somebody's getting them. I presume they are largely the same people. Interestingly, there are generally more BS in non selective was, so the high ability kids do about the same, and the middle ability kids do better.'

Link?

So is your DD in a Comp Word? and your DS, is he in a superselective Grammar? For that is how your post reads.

Again Seeker from personal experience I would have to disagree on that - I know for a fact I would not have done as well at a comprehensive as I did in my selective independent. My home life would have been dire (as it was - partly why I was boarding) and I really needed extra pushing at school as had a tenancy to coast and bunk off lessons. The ability was there but without boarding and having a team of teachers who knew me well and set me extra prep as punishment/made me do extra lessons when I was naughty, my ability would have gone completely under the radar in a comprehensive. Subsequently I went to a comp for A'levels and passed 3 by the skin of my teeth. Teachers could see I could do it and told me how much I frustrated them but didn't have the time or energy to 'make' me. My family life was still quite dire and no guidance or control there. I can see how easy it would be for kids with a disadvantaged home life to slip through the net. I am just very lucky I got a good basic education to enable me to just pass my A'levels, in my opinion.

...because I can afford to pay means that they are NOT in the STATE SECTOR

Sorry no pickled both in private school, but DD's is not selective wheras DS' is superselective.

My point wa sonly that I was able to access the choice because I can pay. It would seem wrong to deny other students that choice simply because their parents can't afford it.

If you can 'catch' aspiration, you can catch lack of it.

God yes, pickled...aspiration and ambition are contageous.

I see it all being sucked out of my neice and she definitely has the ability.

Does anyone have the link to the Sutton Trust analysis of selective/non selective areas to hand for pickled? I can't find it- I'll dig later if necessary.

Hullits- your case and your education doesn't sound typical, though.

The choice you can afford to pay for though is the choice of what independent school is best, not whether or not to go state or independent. Don't be disingenuous Word.

Choice is not the right word for what people who have money have (wrt education), what they have is privilege.

Seeker, I have it somewhere actually but don't remember those conclusions in the way that you presented them.

"God yes, pickled...aspiration and ambition are contageous.

I see it all being sucked out of my neice and she definitely has the ability"

Why doesn't this apply to the 11+? People are always telling me that there is no excuse for anyone not being able to prepare for and pass the 11+- it's all a matter of determination and wanting it enough. And being poor and or disadvantaged is no barrier at all. Yet rubbing shoulders with anyone unmotivated is enough to destroy a bright child's chances.

Seeker - I presume the LEA data doesn't include independent schools.

pickled the choice of selective or not is what I meant.

And I think it would be a shame if there were no longer state schools out there that offered that same choice ie selective or not.

Do you mean that in order for a student to pass the 11+ there needs to be a culture of motivation Seeker? I'm not sure I understand your point.

seeker I'd never say that anyone can pass the 11+ irrespective of background.

However, I do think it would be easier for a parent to motivate a ten year old to do a few past papers at home prior to the test, than to motivate a child consistently through six years of study, especially through those teen years, if the culture of aspiration is not there.

One of my hobby horses is that the 11+ is not fair because children from better off/privileged homes are more likely to have parents with the education, knowledge,confidence and leisure to help them. And the money to buy coaching or resources.

An oft repeated resonse is that poverty, disadvantage, lack of confidence in either parent or child is no barrier at all because all you have to do is download papers and practice them, and anyone can do that with enough determination, regardless of circumstances, and the playing field is completely level. However when it comes to the aforementioned privileged children, their chances of getting A*s are threatened by the very presence in the same school of a child of lower intelligence, or limited motivation.

'England's remaining grammar schools are currently enrolling half as many academically able children from disadvantaged backgrounds as they could do.'

From the Sutton Trust Report in 2008

"However, the majority of studies (and all of those we judge to be methodologically strongest) report that pupils who attend grammar schools do better than equally able pupils in comprehensives."

From the same report

Excellent work on this thread, as usual, seeker

I agree the grammar school system is far from perfect but I think someone would be daft to put their political views above a child's education.

I wouldn't put DDs into tutoring if I thought they were not going to be suited to one of the various grammar schools, but if I think they are in the future then certainly I would get them tutored to the extent of preparing them for the test so that they aren't going to make mistakes because it's unfamiliar. They could get in one of the best schools in the country, an advantage we wouldn't be able to buy for them, but will actually help them all their lives after. People just want to give their children the best start possible. YADNBU, OP.

Seeker, of course the 11 plus is not fair because middle class children have an educational advantage. The same is also true for SATs, setting, GCSEs, A levels, entrance to sixth form, being selected to do triple Science, English literature or MFL at GCSE, and university entrance.

To oppose the eleven plus on the basis of class, you would need to demonstrate that the test is more discriminatory against working class children than other educational judgements.

"An oft repeated resonse is that poverty, disadvantage, lack of confidence in either parent or child is no barrier at all because all you have to do is download papers and practice them, and anyone can do that with enough determination, regardless of circumstances"

There are plenty of intelligent well off parents 'round here that are spectacularly poorly informed about Grammar School entrance requirements.

There is no doubt that tutoring has raised the bar in terms of the standard required to access a grammar school education. If the test was taken later in Y6 that would most likely help the 'under privileged'.

The problem is the notion that 'anyone can get in with enough application, effort & time'

It is the opposite of the original purpose of grammar schools.

In the past, it mainly advantaged those from less well off backgrounds whose parents could not expose them to all of those things, but who had natural talents & intellect.

Under the current grammar system those children no longer stand a chance against the crammed and the tutored.

Genuinely, I think the problem had been caused by the explosion of the middle classes. In generations before, people were either well off & went private or not. This whole new tribe of well off, ambitious, driven professionals who would rather not pay the school fees have swamped the few grammar schools that remain.

There is an argument that hard work is worth more than natural ability etc but it's a shame.

However I don't know what the answer is.

I have 3 years before I have to think about it but I fear I'm not going to be able to leave DS to what 'should' happen and cave in & get a tutor.

"Findings -- Attainment
A range of statistical analyses carried out in the study suggest that pupils in grammar schools do better than pupils with the same characteristics in other non-selective schools, with the difference somewhere between zero and three-quarters of a GCSE grade per subject.
Although these analyses indicate that grammar school pupils appear to make greater progress from Key Stage 2 (age 11) to Key Stage 4 (age 16) than other pupils, the study also finds that these same pupils were already making more progress during primary school from Key Stage 1 (age 7) to Key Stage 2 (age 11). This suggests that there may be important but unmeasured differences between grammar and non-grammar school pupils that are driving the differences in attainment, and not necessarily a ?grammar school effect?.
The study also investigated how factors such as the different choices of statistical model, different assumptions underpinning them and various inadequacies of the available data might affect the outcomes of the analysis. Given the arbitrariness and uncertainty introduced by these factors, it was not possible confidently to estimate the difference in attainment more accurately than ?between zero and three-quarters? of a grade per subject."

I apologise for the long c and p. but I think it's important to say that all the studies have been unable to conclusively say that there is a grammar school effect, or that children in grammar schools do conclusively better than high ability children in non selective schools. There appears to be a 0 to .75 difference per grade- but the reason for that is unclear.

That certainly doesn't seem to be a strong enough conclusion to outweigh the significant downside of selective education to the cohort as a whole.