Yes, I know I am... People who tutor their DCs within an inch of their lives and then boast about their achievements

[lilolilmanchester]

Sorry, it does my head in

[Philoslothy]

I did very well academically, I am not sure why I should be proud of being born clever .

[Philoslothy]

I know lots of people who went off the rails post university. Most of my peers at university were privately or grammar educated.

I also know lots of people who have done very well in life.

Also know lots more like me that have gone on to have very mediocre lives .

[Philoslothy]

I have children at the local mediocre comp. I don't think they will get any fewer GCSEs than if they had gone elsewhere.

I just want my children educated within their own local community.

[Floggingmolly]

Jesus, LaQueen . Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought op was referring to children who are not as academic as their peers, being pushed relentlessly to perform way above their natural comfort level in a completely unsustainable way. Not children who just need a gentle nudge to give it their best effort.
Maybe I'm wrong...

[whatever5]

Tutors simply aren't that good, neither do they have magic wands.

Yes, some people seem to believe that tutors can perform miracles.

[Floggingmolly]

True, but they can be pushed to achieve a certain standard by working far, far longer and harder than others who don't have to try nearly as hard; is that fair on the child? Or should some parents just accept that their child is a child not a beast of burden to be worked till they drop?
Honestly, three tutors to keep up with their classmates, as someone posted earlier? Utter nonsense.

[HoratiaDrelincourt]

If a child is only clever enough for grammar school with the support of three tutors, then s/he will need three tutors throughout grammar school, surely? And I'd have thought that was unsustainable both financially and emotionally - once they get into secondary school homework schedules how could there possibly be time?

[whatever5]

True, but they can be pushed to achieve a certain standard by working far, far longer and harder than others who don't have to try nearly as hard; is that fair on the child? Or should some parents just accept that their child is a child not a beast of burden to be worked till they drop?
Honestly, three tutors to keep up with their classmates, as someone posted earlier? Utter nonsense.

Obviously that isn't fair on the child but I think that would be very unusual. In my experience, the vast majority of children at grammar school only had one tutor for an hour or so a week, with a bit of homework.

[ballinacup]

I thought the point of grammar schools, in the original sense, was to offer exceptionally bright children the chance to thrive in an academic setting.

If the exam papers really are laid out in a manner that is so confusing that no child could possibly pass without prior coaching then that doesn't really fit with the original ethos, does it? Maybe if parents stopped tutoring their children, it would go back to the old fashioned way of only the best and brightest getting a grammar school place?

I have to be honest, I don't know a thing about the grammar system as there aren't any grammar schools in my area.

[DarlingGrace]

Ah yes the anecdotal examples of allegedly highly educated professionals shoving coke up their nose at uni and getting blitzed every nigh and now sterling members of the community.

Which bit of helicopter parenting did the highly educated professional not grasp? No one said they went on to be losers for the rest of their lives - this board always projects, it knee jerks, it's just so defensive and I am constantly in awe of all these highly educated people who cannot read what is in front of them.

I don't care if you shoved half of Columbia up your nose and destroyed your septum in the process whilst at university and coupled that with 25 jager bombs every night. You are more inclined to try "forbidden" things when let off mummys leash then if you have been encouraged to problem solve your way through your teenage years.

As you were girls. Pop your handbags down there get on with the hair pulling.

[EllenJanesthickerknickers]

This is an interesting thread. My DS took the 11+ last year. He wasn't tutored but he did do some practice each week with me through August and September, mostly on the computer. He did well and got a score that would have given him a place in the next town super selective. I know this because in our area a 'pass mark' doesn't guarantee a place, they take the top 120 who apply, so your actual score is important. We put two local but out of catchment comprehensives at one and two on the CAF and the super selective third. He got his first choice school, hurray! But DC who were tutored, with lower scores than him did get their places in the grammar, their first choice, also hurray! Win win.

So there are parents who don't tutor, their DC pass, and they still choose the pretty local comprehensives. And I boasted like mad! For us it meant we could put three good schools on his CAF and knew that we'd be happy if he got any one of them.

[Retropear]

There is more of a problem with primary school quality than tutoring imvho.

The 11+ format isn't that hard but if you are in a primary that doesn't push it's brightest pupils and isn't Outstanding or private you are at a disadvantage as pupils simply don't cover the content in time at school.

I get angrier with parents who buy primary places at Outstanding primaries and private schools in order to buy grammar places tbh.An hour a week of tutoring in y5 is nothing compared to years in a better school.

[HoratiaDrelincourt]

Here people coach throughout Y5 and Y6 for SATS and we aren't even in a grammar area. It baffles me.

[EllenJanesthickerknickers]

Coaching for SATs? Now that is weird...

[Procrastreation]

Why not double the pupil premium for grammar schools, to incentivise them to take in a more balanced intake? (e.g. by changing the format of the tests around, bringing back HT references or 'position within class' as part of the selection, and so on).

Also - why not drop the modesty and coyness about tutoring - and put it on the KS2 curriculum as extension work for able children. It is a nonsense the state school have to refuse to engage with the entrance tests, while prep schools have freedom to prepare properly.

I'm just starting to tutor my DD - and it's really not black magic. Go through what she knows, and fill in any gaps. Do some papers to time. Give some tips on good exam technique (checking work, moving on from hard questions). Give her some harder questions, and talk her through about how she can apply her knowledge creatively. Extend her vocabulary by reading and games. Do some papers to time. I'd like her to get a grammar place - but even if she doesn't, I think our extra work will have left her with solid foundations.

[Retropear]

It's interesting though as kids are often put in sets at secondary according to Sats(I checked at our feeder and they are). Now if you end up in lower sets than you should be because of a weaker primary you will find it harder to get into the higher sets and extension work further down the line.

So perhaps parents tutoring for Sats aren't that daft.

[Procrastreation]

Nope.

Tutoring for SATs is totally barking.

[Retropear]

Re pupil premium what about those above it stuck in crappy primaries and unable to buy their way in with property and private fees?

Those rich kids and those on pp would be alright Jack but those in the middle royally fucked.Not fair.

[EllenJanesthickerknickers]

Retropear, pretty much the whole of Y7 at most comps is about finding out what the DCs real ability is, and by Y8 the sets are based on how they have done in Y7. And some don't set except for Maths until Y8.

[Retropear]

I'm not so sure.If your kids are in a primary with crappy results who go onto a secondary with kids in an Outstanding school that gets amazing results try are going yo be disadvantaged without parents doing something.

[whatever5]

If the exam papers really are laid out in a manner that is so confusing that no child could possibly pass without prior coaching then that doesn't really fit with the original ethos, does it? Maybe if parents stopped tutoring their children, it would go back to the old fashioned way of only the best and brightest getting a grammar school place?

It would be good if they could somehow ban parents from tutoring but that would be impossible wouldn't it? Unfortunately it is also impossible to design a test that only assesses intelligence and doesn't take learned skills/knowledge into account and so those who have had coaching will always have an advantage compared with those that don't.

Anyway, I'm not sure that there has ever been a system where only the brightest and best got into a grammar school. Even before tutoring those who went to the best primary schools were more likely to get in than those who didn't go to such good ones. At least nowadays, the primary schools themselves don't coach children for the tests as they used to in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

[Procrastreation]

Pupil premium = FSM in the last 6 years.

So - what I mean - is that maybe grammars should be incentivised or held accountable to whether their intake reflects the demographics of their community.

If a mixed grammar school was routinely admitting - say - 80% boys, then questions would be asked.

[Retropear]

Confidence is a big thing and if you rock up at a lower level with extra work to cover you will be disadvantaged.