"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?

[MTSgroupie]

gazz - you are cool with tutoring your DCs for 6 months but doing it for 3 years is cheating ???? How does doing something for longer than others make it 'cheating'. Is a gymnast cheating because she started at 4? Strange perspective

In anycase, being tutored for 3 years offers no advantage IMO. After 6 months my DS was scoring on average 90% in his mock papers. Another 2 yr 6 months would probably have reversed he mark since he was showing signs of being over cooked.

Music teachers will tell you that pass a point in time having a child practice an exam piece on and on has the reverse effect so I'm a bit at the parents who think that it's unfair that the next kid has been tutored for a number of years

[PanicMode]

I have only skimmed the thread, but we are in Kent and have a child whose teachers are confident he'll get into the superselectives here. However, given there are 12 children applying for every place, we are going to send him to a tutor in order to ensure he has the best shot at it that he can. Even the private prep children here are tutored - so sending a state primary child into an exam he's never seen before would be like sending a lamb to the slaughter. DS will take his 11+ in Sept 2014 and I believe will be the first cohort to take the 'less tutorable-for' test which Kent are proposing. I am massively in favour of making the playing field more level and trying to eliminate the 'coaching' that goes on here, but I'm not going to not tutor purely because it might be seen as 'cheating' if every other parent IS 'cheating' and giving their child a competitive edge over mine, especially when I know that he has the innate ability to get in. That's not to say it's not a hideous system, but sadly, life is competitive and people will always play the system to get an advantage.

[Suzieismyname]

It is cheating those from families who can't afford tutoring out of a place...

[CecilyP]

But even if the exam is not stuff covered by the National Curriculum,aren't the children sitting it supposed to be clever enough to work out what is required? To be able to 'think outside the box',which is why they should be attending Grammar School in the first place?

Certainly this was the idea behind replacing an English and Maths type 11+ with a VR and NVR type exam. The theory was that it would level the playing field between children who went to good and less good primary schools. Of course, parents then realised that, with practice at VR and NVR, their children could greatly increase their scores and so this tutoring industry was born. Meanwhile, far from putting on extra classes, in some areas, primary school teachers a forbidden to teach to these exams - they may be allowed to give children a fixed number eg 3 familiarisation papers - that is all.

[MTSgroupie]

Why do people keep equating tutoring with money?

The Internet offers a wealth of (free) 11+ papers. And are people really saying that some parents can't support their kids in passing a test aimed at 10 year olds?

[CecilyP]

^What is a 'super selective' in co parison to a selective???

Am I missing something? I keep seeing it on MN and have actually never heard of one.^

It is not an official term but it refers to selective schools, often in areas that have kept selection but are easily accessible from other areas that have a comprehensive system, so they attract the top-scoring children from many neighbouring LEAs and often a wide geographical area. Tiffin schools in Kingston upon Thames and Latymer School in Edmonton are typical examples. Whereas in places like Kent which has kept a fully selective system and most of Kent is not really accessible from any other LEA they have normal selectives. However, to complicate things even further, some Kent selectives are more selective than others.

[seeker]

"What is a 'super selective' in co parison to a selective???

Am I missing something? I keep seeing it on MN and have actually never heard of one."

It's not something that's relevant to many people- only to those of us in the few remaining selective LEAs. An "ordinary" selective school takes 20/25% of the cohort, with the remainder going to what amounts to an old fashioned secondary modern. A "super selective" takes the top 5ish%, usually drawn from quite a wide area leaving what is virtually a comprehensive school for the remaining 95%.

[PatPig]

Not really seeker, a super selective will take top 5% (at passing the stupid test), but this leaves numerous comprehensives of different levels, religious schools, and so on.

[TheHerringScreams]

I've worked out that our local super selective takes roughly 3.5%!

[ReindeerBollocks]

DS will be privately tutored from September to coincide with the start of year 5, but that is merely to ensure that he has a good grasp of key stages 1&2 - he has missed large sections of schooling, and whilst his teacher acknowledges that he is extremely bright, his patchy knowledge is going to hinder his education in the future, if it is not sorted.

Everyone else in our stupidly competitive school has had their children in some form of private education since year 3! So it's more uncommon in our area not to do it.

However, I think parents are so hard pushed to get their child into the right schools that they don't think about the particular capabilities of the child. If a child is able to pass the entrance exams but their strengths lie in other areas then it seems a waste of a place at a school which doesn't fit their particular areas. There are lots of grammar schools here - some excel solely in academia, some focus on practical based solutions, some way more all rounder types, and some are sport and science based. So many parents I have spoken to say X is going to the 'Y' school because it is better, when their child might actually be better in school 'Z'. That is why I have asked our school about the best school for our son. Not just about the best school - and not surprisingly I've been given a different answer than just the best school.

[ReindeerBollocks]

My last sentence is very badly explained but I hope that you can understand it!

[CecilyP]

^I still don't understand. We live in an area which has grammar schools.

I think they are all the same no?^

No, they are not all the same! They can have widely differing intakes. The superselectives will have almost 100% pupils coming in at level 5, whereas, with the ordinary selectives, it can be as low as 65%.

[ReindeerBollocks]

Haha I think you know which one The one which all the boys go to and has a 98% pass rate - always in the paper as they get into Oxford and Cambridge. That one! Yeah, DS wouldn't get in there - but it wouldn't be right for him either.

We are good thanks, how are you and more importantly how was your holiday?

[seeker]

PatPig- it was a broad brush explanation. The big difference is that in areas where 25% go to grammar school, there are no comprehensives. In areas where 5 (or3.5!)% go to grammar school, there are ( to all intents and purposes)

TheSecondComing- you may not have a super selective. Not all selective areas do.

[seeker]

"No, they are not all the same! They can have widely differing intakes. The superselectives will have almost 100% pupils coming in at level 5, whereas, with the ordinary selectives, it can be as low as 65%."

I would be very surprised if many grammar schools have 65% level 5 intake.

[seeker]

You may have done! What % of the people who took the test got a place?

[CecilyP]

I would be very surprised if many grammar schools have 65% level 5 intake.

No there won't be many, but I could, but won't, name 2 - one in Kent; one in Birmingham.

[MmeThenardier]

reindeer do you mean its a boys school or they just let in more boys than girls?

[seeker]

Not half arsed- a tad disingenuous perhaps. Unless you never talk to any other parents, read the local paper, look at the school website, attend any school events, listen to the transfer talk at your primary school........

[ReindeerBollocks]

It's MGS however I know that AGS and Ambrose are also highly sought after.

And yes, you did send your DD to a super selective but I wouldn't worry about it, it sounds like she is more than excelling.

DS has been recommended the SGS, near your good self. What is that like as a school?

Our primary aim to have a large percentage of students at level 5 when they leave, so I don't think it's too uncommon in our area, plus as there are so many grammars it's slightly different than in areas where there are only a couple.

Glad to hear the holiday was good. Carnage at night sounds fucking fantastic - I'm jealous but pleased you had a great time. Hope DS is better soon too - my DS will be in that hospital soon too, bloody chest related illnesses!

[ReindeerBollocks]

Mme yes it is a boys school.