to be shocked that it's common in the 'best' primary round here for children to have tutors to get the through SATS and then the children are streamed on ability (ie test scores)

[wotnopulling]

i can't believe this. it's so depressing. are tutors for SATS common (thought they were meant to test the teaching not the children). Do all schools stream according to ability?!

What do you not like about streaming for ability?

I think it's normal to stream for ability. In DS1's class (state primary Year 1) there is a huge range of ability - from free-readers to children still struggling with letter sounds. It makes sense to teach those kids separately.

labelling them at such a young age - getting them into that competetive mindset when they should be enjoying learning and learning to socialise not swotting for exams - i know of children who refer to themselves as 'thick' because they're bottom on the class in primary school. surely this isn't helpful to their development?!
i thought that whole 11+ argument was over. seems not.

I've not heard of tutoring for SATs. YANBU to think that is odd.
Streaming is widespread though, dd's school streams from Yr2. The children are not told which is top set etc, they just think that there are 4 classes in each year because of classroom size.
DSD's school has an awful system though where the children are streamed into "Low, Medium, High" and told which group they are in. Has led to lots of bullying.

I don't believe tutors for SATs are common, but is it possible that the children are being tutored primarily for private school exams in January, and the parents just carry it on for a couple of extra months because they are already in the routine?

have never heard of tutors for sats

streaming according to ability is the norm and sensible ime

i'd make a distinction between streaming to meet an individual childs needs (and not labelling the classes bright through to dumb)and streaming as a result of testing.
all that seems to be happening is parents coaching primary school children to pass tests. how stressful is that for all concerned?

Sorry, cross posted. 11+ is a different kettle of fish in my opinion. Dd will be doing 11+ and i have no issue with it. Tutoring for Y2 SATs on the other hand is just over kill and serves no purpose.

I don't think you avoid the competitive mindset by not streaming! On the contrary, the wider the ability gap in the same classroom, the greater the opportunity for children to feel inferior or superior to others.

I don't think it is necessarily stressful to be coached for exams, even at a young age.

so it's not the world that's gone mad - just a little corner of lefty liberal north *%"! london.
maybe i should just avoid this school then - even though it's meant to be the best.

my problem not with streaming but labelling i guess.

I agree that labelling is much more dangerous than streaming.

I agree with you re labaelling children. I think that some schools that are reputed to be the best may well have lots of bright well tutored kids on their role, but their parents will have spent an awful lot of money on outside tutors and activities to bolster what the school lacks.
Perhaps have a look round for a school that has decent pastoral care, provision for after school and lunchtime clubs, a good mix of abilities.

labelling. FGS.

Tutoring for SATS is daft. Why pay for something that is only benefitting the school?

Streaming for ability is OK though? Isn't it? But of it's any comfort IME Yr 6 SATs mean very little to the secondary schools they children go to. They usually assess independently. Any streaming isn't set in stone. As the child's abilities change so will their stream.

I think that quite a few children have tutoring in our area, although its often nothing to do with SATs. (Certainly key stage 1 SATS are done on teacher assessment so it would be a waste of money.)

A common reason for paying for tutoring is having a child who struggles in a particular area. For example its worth pushing a young child hard so that they do learn read inspite of being dyslexic as reading is an important life skill.

I'm paying for my son to go to Kip McGrath to have help with hand writing. He had an IEP at school for handwriting, but only had 5 to 10 minutes one to one help once a week. I felt this wasn't enough so I am paying for someone to help him with hand writing.

There is a little pakistani boy in my son's Kip McGrath group who has only been in England for a year and his parents are paying for him to have help with his English.

It may well be a side affect of tutoring that SAT results improve, but for many parents it isn't the principle reason. They want their child to have a bit of extra attention for one reason or another, but can't afford private education.

Tutoring for SATS is maddening! Further polarises schools in rich/poor areas. But some people cannot stop themselves, I wish the gov. would scrap SATS!

Streaming according to ability is a bit of a mixed one for me. My son spent the whole of year one in a low ability group because he had been in a Steiner School and had therefore done no formal learning, but around christmas time he caught up very quickly, becoming above averasge in some areas, his teacher spectacularly failed to see this and kept him in the low ability group (she was the type who writes comments for all the kids on the end of year report that makes you wonder if she even knows who your child is!), some kids could just end up seeing that as their position in life mapped out already. Luckily his tecaher this year is really fab and has reponded to the quality of work, rather than the school he came from.

i think this is the problem manatee - in an ideal world streaming would work well and all children would get the level of help/coaching they need at school but i've been told that once the children are streamed it's difficult for them to move out of that stream. I think we all know not all school and not all teachers are created equal. you can hope to get a fab teacher but you can't rely on it (and one persons fab is anothers not so fab).

Every teacher I know hates stats and would scrap them tomorrow, however we will tutor for the 11+ you'd be crazy not too so I suppose the next step is to tutor for stats, I know I lost 2 years at senior school because I was put in middle set and then had to get 5 A's to get moved up into top set, so if I thought there was any chance my child would miss out on opportunities I'd tutor them.
The kids labelled thick at our school are the one's who's parents don't bother, a little effort goes a long way.

I don't see how you can tutor for the 11+, yes you can do practice papers with your child to get them used to the format, but turoring is counterproductive imo. If you need to tutor your child to get them through what effectively is an admissions test for grammar school then you are doing them a disservice in my opinion. If they struggle with the 11+ then they are going to struggle at grammar school, probably be in the bottom sets and end up feeling "thick" anyway. Thats just my opinion.

Tutoring at secondary school is different, help with a subject that your child is struggling with but by christ - don't our children spend enough time in school anyway?

What happened to them enjoying life? The 11+ is designed so you can't revise for it anyway.

can't see the merit in labelling the parents or the children.

shouldn't a state education be a level playing field for all children, regardless of their background?

why don't we just create one education system the parents pay as much as they can and the richest get the best education with a sliding scale till we get to the 'underclass' (who don't need to write) and then we could all relax and know our place.

"shouldn't a state education be a level playing field for all children, regardless of their background?"

There are two difficulties inherent in giving all children the same education ("a
level playing field").

1. Not all children are born genetically equal. Some are just much cleverer than others and need to learn at a faster pace.

1. Background means that children arrive at school having already learnt different things - there are huge differences in vocabulary and social skills between three year olds, for example, dependent on what their parents have already passed on to them.

i agree wholeheartedly wotnotpulling - i hate the inequalities in education. Its totally unfair. Its seems to me to be a case of private eductation, good catchment area (ie high property prices), the rest of us. Its shit shit shit and it really makes me angry.

I 've never heard of anyone being tutored for SATs.As others have said it is a waste of time as secondarys do their own tests.

I have in the past paid for tutoring with the Dyslexia Institue and for an english tutor at home (different DSs).It was nothing to do with SATs both boys failed to get level 4 english anyway, and we and the school were well aware of their problems.

I have no problem with streaming in primary.
In secondary it is vital. In my DSs school they are streamed from Yr7 in every subject except PHSD, music and PE which are taught in their mixed ability tutor groups. They are tested and are moved up or down as necessary. In year 9 top sets in maths take GCSE statistics, and top sets in science start GCSEs early. They may do something similar for top sets in english but I've not managed to get one there yet.

So what you are saying then Anna is that children who are from say poorer backgrounds (i dont mean financially poorer) who might not have had as good a start as a child with parents that either can't or don't want to give them a head start, should recieve a lesser standard of education than those other children? . Yeah, that would be fair wouldnt it!