Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

670 replies

twiceupinarms · 26/04/2013 19:29

namechange coz as much as I don't care if she reads this, I don't want her to know my normal nickname.Angry
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.
Angry
AIBU to be cross?

OP posts:
MsJupiterJones · 26/04/2013 22:26

I think some logic on here is upside down.

I did lots of entrance exams at 11 and the only preparation was to look at a few past papers. I was always told how naturally bright and brainy I was and passed no problems. However, I'd never had to work really hard to achieve academic success and had no discipline to get to the high standards of secondary school; it was only around GCSE time that I realised I couldn't just coast. I think those going to tutors and doing lots of extra work really appreciate the value of putting those hours in, doing the kind of structured study that prepares you for later exams.

The tutored child is still sitting the exam themself, that study isn't going to waste. Far from cheating, I think tutoring stands them in good stead and I won't hesitate to do the same for my DS if he shows promise. (He's 6mo at the moment so not booking him in just yet)

exoticfruits · 26/04/2013 22:34

I would love a system where they all went in cold and had never seen a paper before but, since it is impossible, you have to accept that most have been tutored and follow suit. A bright child who has been tutored is going to do better than a bright child who hasn't.

PatPig · 26/04/2013 22:41

It's absolutely cheating, but everyone does it.

TheHerringScreams · 26/04/2013 22:45

Most have been tutored. My very bright 12yo was tutored to get into a super selective in London with an approximate entrance rate of 3200 for just 120 places. She got in on the waiting list at 141 and got into the school. She does very well there and if you aren't tutored y have NO chance. No utter chance. Non verbal and verbal reasoning and getting in the top 120 or so without tutors isn't going to happen. The brightest kids in the year were tutored- the 11+ is a pretty bad test and basically uses no real logic or previous maths or English or comprehension knowledge. Private school tests are usually different as they use basic knowledge and understanding in the form of maths and English in my area, so if you ate bright at either you stand a great chance without tutoring.

Tbh, if you entered the 11+ in our ultra competitive area without tutoring your child, most people would have laughed. Because the sad reality around here is that you need tutoring to come close, even if you come near bottom you gave probably had tutoring because there is s much competition. It's the reality- not cheating,Np in a fairer test it wouldn't happen, but the test isn't fair. That's the problem.

Dominodonkey · 26/04/2013 22:45

YABU but I can see why you do it.

Almost everyone I know passed their 11+ (we have a proper old fashioned grammar system in our area.

No one I know had tutoring at all. If we passed then we passed and if we didn't we weren't clever enough for grammar. Seems simple enough to me. Means the cleverest get in, not the richest.

Nothing wrong with showing her a few papers but if she needs tutoring to pass she is potentially taking a place from a child who is poorer and has less pushy parents. This doesn't seem fair.

CloudsAndTrees · 26/04/2013 22:45

There seems to be a lot of people on this thread that don't understand the meaning of the word 'cheating'.

AngiBolen · 26/04/2013 22:49

Tutoring is not cheating, it's putting your DC on a level playing field with all other tutored DC (of which there will be many).

Yes, there will be some DC who aren't tutored, are at the top to their class, will do well in SATS but won't get a grammar place. Yes, there are kids who will mess up on the day, and not be offered a place. There are middle of the class kids who are tutored daily from Y3 and just scrape a grammar place, only to spend the next 4 years feeling shit. The whole thing is unfair, so feel free to tutor. It's not cheating, it's jumping through hoops.

I say this as someone who's DC could have passed the 11+ for the super selective with some tutoring (he missed by 2 points). I am actually glad DS didn't go to the grammar school, but goes to a much better school (IMO). It makes me sick to see on FB the "Oh my DC is sooo speshul they are going to the grammar" Yes, because your DC was tutored intensively, and then you appealed when they weren't offered a place, and hung around on the waiting list for three years. It's not the be all and end all, as you will see if you glance at the school's alumni. Cheeting? No. Jumping through the necessary hoops? Yes.

Ponyo73 · 26/04/2013 22:50

Agree with Worra on page 1. Why are you even thinking of anyone ' s opinion when it comes to your lovely bairn. No one has any right to comment or have an opinion on how you raise your child. Sometimes I think it's best to go on gut reaction and have confidence in ourselves to make these decisions.

Ponyo73 · 26/04/2013 22:57

Oh and would get as much help and tutoring as possible if needs must. Wouldn't every parent? It's so competitive out there and you have to think about what's best for your kid. My hackles go up when I hear about children learning mandarin or whatever is deemed the right thing, but that's just me being jealous.

Dereksmalls · 26/04/2013 23:00

Am a bit confused by this. I don't know much about grammar schools (live in Scotland) but are the exams different from the ones sat by everyone else? Would a kid "inappropriately" placed in a grammar school get a poorer mark then they otherwise would? The whole thing seems like a waste of time to me, why not one school with streamed classes, what's the difference?

OddBoots · 26/04/2013 23:11

It's not cheating but it is playing the system. Sadly our education system is presently laid out like a puzzle game designed to compound advantage and disadvantage. I don't think anyone can blame parents for trying to push their children to the front when such a system exists.

AngiBolen · 26/04/2013 23:17

The GCSEs taken by grammar school and secondary modern and comprehensive DC are exactly the same.

Grammar schools tend to get great exam results, which is why parents are desperate to get their DC into them.

Grammar schools provide an education free of thickos and riffraff, provided by the state, which you would normally have to pay 10K pa for.

Grammar schools tend to be girls/ boys which many parents like. (Personally I don't)

In this town grammar places are offered to 2/3% of DC. Therefor there are many very able children in the "secondary moderns". So why do those schools not get great results too?

I have no idea, and send my DC to a school in another town where they no longer have this ridiculous system.

ReallyTired · 26/04/2013 23:20

There are in excess of 160 grammar schools in England and some of them are super selective and some just take the top 25% in the area.

I think a lot depends what you want to the tutor to do. One of ds' friends got into Parmitars with some tutoring. He came to the UK at the age of seven unable to speak a word of English. At the age of ten his English was good, but not outstanding. Having a tutor meant that he could compete with children who have English as a first language.

Life is not fair. It is unfair that my children do not attend an acceptable (to OFSTED) primary school. It is unfair that milions of children live in povety.

tiggytape · 26/04/2013 23:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AngiBolen · 26/04/2013 23:22

Oh and would get as much help and tutoring as possible if needs must. Wouldn't every parent?

No, I have an away with the fairies friend who had no idea how bright her DS was.....put him in for the 11+ with no tutoring, and he turned out to be G&T at the grammar school.
I have another friend who thought the 11+ was in March, not October, and didn't tutor...her DD scraped in to the grammar school, and flourished there....out performing the other DC who had been heavily tutored.

I also know of DC who were heavily tutored, and got into the grammar school....and their parents never mention how they are doing academically. I have no doubt they will do well, as they are in a good academic environment, and will be expected to go to university.

Mrstyphoo · 26/04/2013 23:35

I agree with your sil, however that's only because I believe such papers should be taken and awarded on a child's actual merit. Likewise I don't agree with schools prepping the class for their stats.

That aside, we all do what is best for our children and that is the school you want your child to go to.
I agree with other posters once in attendance your child will obviously excel compared to not such a good school.

SacreBlue · 27/04/2013 07:24

Pfft well what does it matter to us parents, it's the kids who have to go to the school and put the work in and if you think you have done your best, let your DC tell you when he/she gets to the end.

Vizzage · 27/04/2013 07:29

Assuming tutoring is helpful to a child's education, whereas being able to tutor and choosing not to is unhelpful to a child's education, I would say provide tutoring for her.

SacreBlue · 27/04/2013 07:34

assuming

SprinkleLiberally · 27/04/2013 07:48

I dont like tutoring because it puts poorer children at a disadvantage.

It is not "cheating" because it is allowed, I might even do it if we had GS here.

But I don't think it is fair.

JakeBullet · 27/04/2013 07:49

Your SIL is sort of correct.....but this ignores the fact that virtually every child sitting the Grammer school exams WILL have been tutored to within an inch of his/her life. It seems that for there to be an even playing field for your DD you almost HAVE to have a tutor. It isn't right but it's reality.

FrauMoose · 27/04/2013 08:01

I think that tutoring is an industry which plays on parental insecurity and - inevitably - tends to discriminate against parents who are struggling to pay for real basics (food, utilities, rent/mortgage). These parent then become less likely to enter their children for selective schools believing that their children won't be prepared.

Some grammar schools - such as the one my daughter attends - advise against private tutoring, and recommend inexpensive books of test papers so that children can familiarise themselves with the basic format of the entrance test.

My stepchildren were privately tutored/coached. I think the coaching was dull, expensive, and did very little for their wider education. It simply benefited the tutor's bank balance. The general pressure around the issue also made my stepdaughter feel like 'a failure' when she wasn't awarded a grammar school place. Although she went to a well-regarded non-selective school it took her some years to get her confidence back.

Witnessing this made me and my partner quite clear that we wouldn't get our own daughter tutored

Squarepebbles · 27/04/2013 08:08

If we are going to keep grammar schools I think only kids from state schools should be allowed to apply for a start.

They were designed for state kids(not rich parents who want a school fee break). A private education in primary gives you an unfair advantage(lots of hours free from Gove in order to teach 11+,tiny classes etc,etc).

Then in state Year 4 primaries a letter should go home to all year 4 kids asking which parents would like their kids to have a go.Teachers should see those in particular they think would be suitable.Then schools should provide an 11+ club either parents club together to pay a tutor or an allotted teacher could run it like any other club(not that hard to bone up on it). Perhaps said teacher could get a couple of days a year as support,extra PPA time etc.

Schools provide for all sorts of extra needs and to be frank if tax payers money are going on these schools all suitable kids should get an opportunity.

coralanne · 27/04/2013 08:11

I'm in two minds about this.

They probably should practise previous exams but the thing is, when they get out into the "real world" they have to sink or swim on their own merit and abilities.

When they front up for a job interview they are not going to be given a "practise" interview or be tutored before they are accepted for the position applied for.

On the other hand (can you tell I'm a LibraGrin) academic achievement is the same as sporting achievement.

You can't just stroll up to an elite sporting team and expect to be picked for the team. It takes years of training and practice.

My DD has won a ballet scholarship.

The scholarship exam also included an academic exam.

If she had not been training since she was 5 years old, then she would not have won the scholarship.

I think that if their natural ability is outstanding, then it doesn't hurt to have them tutored in the mechanics of the application process.

Squarepebbles · 27/04/2013 08:12

We know several people who have kids that got in with just a couple of exam technique sessions friends have read up on and given them.

My dad (poor gardeners boy)and uncle got into what are now the super selective grammars in Kent with zero tutoring. My dad was a lazy tyke at primary but clearly amazingly G&T at grammar,if he hadn't have gone I seriously wonder what would have happened to him.