Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

TUTORING CHILDREN THOUGHTS....

209 replies

bijou3 · 27/02/2012 09:53

Is IQ genetic or environmental?

With so many parents opting to Tutor their children for entrance into Grammar or selective independent schools one has to wonder if Grammar schools are selecting the boroughs brightest or are they selecting the boroughs best trained?

Do parents worry about the consequences of tutoring their children for highly selective schools and the possible repercussions that may develop over time if a child is unable to keep up?

How can we as parents gauge how good a school is if most of the parents are tutoring their children?

OP posts:
SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 11:54

"Everyone should be aiming for 10 A*s unless there's a good reason why not IMO"

And that good reason is usually because a child is not bright enough Hmm

There is no reason aiming for 10A*s if all you can realistically achieve is 5 Bs. If this is the child's best effort than that is a fabulous achievement.

However, if you are in an environment where all your peers are expected to get 10 As and you simply are unable to work at this level, you will* fall behind. This helps no one and highlights a problem caused by overly optimistic parents hot housing their child to pass the 11+.

I tutored both DSs only because I was confident they could keep up in a highly selective environment.

seeker · 28/02/2012 11:56

Nothing wrong with aiming very high. But overambitious targets are just as unhelpful as underambitious ones. And saying everyone can get 10 As is just silly. As is saying thatnif you can get a B you can get an A.

SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 12:11

"saying everyone can get 10 As is just silly"

This why there is the whole "dumbing down of exams" argument.

LeQueen · 28/02/2012 12:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JugglingWithTangentialOranges · 28/02/2012 12:16

Any school worth it's salt should be able to adequately educate any child capable of getting to that school.

I think it's more later on that young people should consider what sort of work they will be happy and confident doing

  • so there could possibly be an argument (for example) that not everyone capable of getting onto a course for medicine or law might thrive later as a doctor or lawyer (respectively)
SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 12:48

"Any school worth it's salt should be able to adequately educate any child capable of getting to that school."

I think this simply isn't true though, given the level of tutoring that goes on. I think it is entirely possible to heavily tutor a child so that they can pass an 11+ but they would be incapable of keeping up with the academic work because of the depth of knowledge needed. The 11+ is flawed in that resect.

SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 12:49

The parent/child would have to maintain the same level of tutoring throughout the child's school life I think.

Cortina · 28/02/2012 12:49

Agree that not all are natural academics but think when it comes to entry level exams there is nothing wrong with being ambitious. Also fail to see why someone is capable of a B and not an A? Especially as there may be only a few marks between the grades.

Migsy1 · 28/02/2012 12:55

Why go to a grammar at all then? Surely if the child is so bright they will do well in a comp.

SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 12:55

Because they may only be capable of scraping a B!

Cortina · 28/02/2012 12:55

Something that really interests me is we rarely consider that a child might just 'get smarter' that there might be changes at a neural level, if you like, when a child is exposed to challenging material? Take a child with an 'average' intellect, expose them to maths daily, get them playing chess etc. Is it not possible that they begin to exceed expectations? The very act of 'over-tutoring' makes them brighter? Asian children with alleged 'tiger parents' seem to thrive at our grammar school are they all just born brighter at birth? Many believe so.

SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 12:58

"Why go to a grammar at all then? Surely if the child is so bright they will do well in a comp."

Because a very bright child in a very bright environment will perform better than a very bright child in a mixed environment. It may only be marginal though, depending on the child.

I know DS2 is the kind of child who would coast - do just enough to get by and not one iota. He needs to be in a challenging environment so that he doesn't underachieve his potential. DS1 probably has the ability to do well in whatever school he'd been sent to.

Cortina · 28/02/2012 12:58

IMO if a child has a average intellect they can get an A or A* with very hard work in an entry level exam. Look at maths GCSE I am reliably informed you can get an A by acing the easier questions and not doing so well at the more challenging ones.

SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 13:01

"Asian children with alleged 'tiger parents' seem to thrive at our grammar school are they all just born brighter at birth? "

I think many Asian families will continue to put in the same level of input into their child's school career as they do into the exam tutoring. As a sweeping generalisation, they do seem to have a very strong commitment to this sort of thing.

SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 13:03

"Look at maths GCSE I am reliably informed you can get an A by acing the easier questions and not doing so well at the more challenging ones."

Like I said dumbing down.

SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 13:04

"average intellect" is not an A and it isn't a B. This is a problem with the perception of exam results. Some children are only ever going to be average academically.

Migsy1 · 28/02/2012 13:05

I was tutored over 30 years ago to get into a grammar. I ended up doing better academically than most of my peers at the grammar. I went to a red brick uni and have a Masters degree. I now run my own business and live in a very nice area in spite of bringing up 3 children on my own.
I don't know how I would have done had I gone to the alternative school but I'm glad I was tutored to pass the exam. It worked out well for me.
Go for it!

JugglingWithTangentialOranges · 28/02/2012 13:07

I'd rather my child was in the bottom set of a good grammar than towards the top of a large, unruly Comp !

As it happens DD is doing well at her excellent faith secondary school, and DS the same at his "outstanding" state primary (we don't have grammars here)

  • although I went to a grammar myself which may explain my apprehension for Comp's Smile

Basically, as I've said, I think you should go for the best school you can find/ achieve for your DCs. I find it a bit strange when people write their own kids out with "Yes, his sister goes there (so he could have a place) but we don't think it would suit him/ think he would struggle going there"
Or another friend who's son did well at GCSE's deciding to just keep him where he was, although he was thinking of upgrading to better 6th form, and would have done with encouragement from parents. Can't remember exactly how she put it but it seemed to me they were, between them, turning down a good opportunity.

Haziedoll · 28/02/2012 13:21

I would consider a tutor if my child was falling behind and needed extra help. I wouldn't tutor to prepare for a grammar school place although I'm well aware that lots of people do.

Tutoring is definitely becoming more widespread, it's almost the norm. I live in a middle-class area and lots of people are tutoring in preparation for 11 plus. I haven't decided if we will enter ds for grammar school yet but if we do I won't employ a private tutor, it is counter-productive, all the information is available online and employing a tutor adds to the pressure and increases the sense of failure if the child doesn't get in. I also know people who are tutoring 7/8 year olds for fun. I don't get that, if they enjoy maths give them a project to get stuck into or some Letts workbooks why spend thousands on a tutor?

I grew up in a working class area where there aren't any grammar schools. Lots of friends start tutoring their children for the key stage 2 sats and then continue throughout secondary school. When I ask why they say to give them a head start. In fact I would say that tutoring seems even more widespread amongst my working class friends.

As I said I would consider a tutor if my child was falling behind and not responding to my efforts but otherwise I don't really get it. Am I missing something? Is this what we are supposed to do these days?

Haziedoll · 28/02/2012 13:35

Going slightly off topic here, my expectations for my children's education differ considerably at primary and secondary level. At primary I want them to have a love of learning and being in the school environment, I don't want them pushed or hothoused and I'm not really interested in the SAT results. I want them to be exposed to lots of fun creative activities that engage and inspire them.

At secondary level I want them to be pushed and encouraged to achieve their potential. I want them to appreciate that you don't get results unless you put the work in, at this level they should be confident independent learners. I think if you get the first bit right you are more likely to have teenagers who are interested in learning and prepared to work hard.

I might be wrong my children are very young so only time will tell.

JugglingWithTangentialOranges · 28/02/2012 13:45

Mine are 12 and 10 Hazie and I still agree with you !

SoupDragon · 28/02/2012 13:56

"I don't know how I would have done had I gone to the alternative school but I'm glad I was tutored to pass the exam. It worked out well for me."

Well, Migsy, given you think a GSCE is the same in every school, I'm sure you would have got exactly the same results as you did in the grammar.

Evilclown · 28/02/2012 13:59

The problems with tutoring to me are that not all parents can afford them. Let us not forget that Grammars were originally intended as a vehicle for social mobility for naturally bright, academic children. Not over tutored children from pushy families.

People that tutor average children to secure a place seem to forget that they are taking that place away from a child whose parents can not afford to tutor or who are ill informed about the process. I know the reply from some will be that they do what is best for their child, but it is grossly unfair that one can buy their way into a school that is meant to be free.

The selfishness of some people these days is breathtaking and so very sad.

I really wish that the whole admission system for grammars could be overhauled and a way to detect those who are naturally clever could be identified and used.

seeker · 28/02/2012 14:42

And in many areas the alternative to a grammar school is not a comprehensive, it is a high school.

JugglingWithTangentialOranges · 28/02/2012 14:49

I don't really get the "taking a place away from another child" argument.

To me my children are at least as worthy of a place at any school as any other child. TBH All children are equally worthy of any place.

A few children, like those that are looked after or have a statement of special needs are rightly put first. After that it's all up for grabs !!