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:
Evilclown · 29/02/2012 11:35

LeQueen, I agree that Grammars were not meant for average children. My point is that they were meant for innately intelligent children, not super tutored children that have had facts drummed into them.

I would like to see some kind of test that would sort the children who really are bright, for want of a better word. Who learn rapidly and soak up information without the need for repetition and drilling in the facts. Kids that can make connections and reach conclusions instantly. Not children that have rote learnt. It is a qualitative difference.

I understand you are stuck between a rock and a hard place with a naturally bright daughter up against tutored children.. I think the schools have a lot to answer for in creating an exam that can be tutored for. These kids learn differently and need teaching differently and that was what Grammars were originally intended to be.

seeker · 29/02/2012 11:53

As I said, grammars are not intended for average children. But they are not intended for affluent muffle class children either!

ReallyTired · 29/02/2012 11:54

gabid don't worry about what other people are thinking.

You are showing your son that you care about him and his future. Its sad that not all mothers are like you.

"I would like to see some kind of test that would sort the children who really are bright, for want of a better word. Who learn rapidly and soak up information without the need for repetition and drilling in the facts. Kids that can make connections and reach conclusions instantly. Not children that have rote learnt. It is a qualitative difference."

I don't think that will be ever possible. I believe that bright children have learnt how to learn. Their brains have learnt how to be more efficient. Good pre school education teaches children the social skills needed to learn. Good parenting makes children more confident and have self belief.

Prehaps the 11 plus should consist of a lesson in something random like ancient peruvian and then a test to see how much the child has picked up.

I used to work at a school for children with learning difficulties. Quite a few of the children were local authority care kids. These kids weren't stupid, but they had suffered extreme child abuse. The extreme child abuse had prevented them learning basic skills in pre school years and the emotional damage prevented them learning once they had been taken into care. I sincerely believe that in some cases if the child had been adopted at birth then the child would not be needing special ed.

Evilclown · 29/02/2012 12:22

As I said, grammars are not intended for average children. But they are not intended for affluent muffle class children either!

Agree. Loving muffle class children.GrinGrinGrin

seeker · 29/02/2012 17:03

"Muffle class children"- that's children who wear scarves and hats from Boden!

Hullygully · 29/02/2012 17:06

what about muffle class who can't afford private?

seeker · 29/02/2012 17:07

What about them?

Hullygully · 29/02/2012 17:08

are they allowed to go to gs?

Hullygully · 29/02/2012 17:09

I mean there are lots of poor muffle classes as well as working classess children.

But I see you wrote affluent. Tis a fine line. How affluent is too affluent? Affluent enough to afford a catchment area house? private school?

seeker · 29/02/2012 17:10

I didn't mean middle class children shouldn't go to grammar schools. I mean that they shouldn't be the only ones who do.

Hullygully · 29/02/2012 17:15

How would you get the "poor and working class but bright" ones in?

seeker · 29/02/2012 17:17

I don't know. The privileged will always be able to manipulate the system to screw the disadvantaged. That's why grammar schools should be abolished and replaced with proper comprehensive schools

Hullygully · 29/02/2012 17:22

sard

Migsy1 · 29/02/2012 19:33

I agree with seeker.

Migsy1 · 29/02/2012 19:34

I love this "muffle class". I think it should be in the Oxford English :)

AllPastYears · 29/02/2012 20:45

"The privileged will always be able to manipulate the system to screw the disadvantaged. That's why grammar schools should be abolished and replaced with proper comprehensive schools"

I'm not sure what you mean by "proper comprehensive schools". In areas with no grammar schools (like mine) the rich and privileged still win, as they can either a) buy a house in a good catchment - very catchment-based here and there are big differences in schools according to the area they serve, or b) go private.

seeker · 29/02/2012 20:50

But at least there is a chance thqt a proper comprehensive school will have a decent sized "top set". In selective areas there's not chance of that at all.

halfrom · 29/02/2012 20:53

SirSugar, any idea of house prices near multi pie shops, KFC, Mackies? Pies include greggs, Greenhaughs, Waterfield, Hampson?

halfrom · 29/02/2012 21:09

Bijou, it's not about tutoring for selective Grammar schools. Parents who tutor are doing it out of a commitment to give their children support and help them reach their potential. The privileged pay tutors to do this. The consequences in m.o. are kids for whom the school system fail continuing to fail without intervention, one example. My dd's school only have 40% of children reaching average levels in literacy on leaving y6. I want my dd to reach above average is that so bad. Maths is 90% gaining above average. I would like her to be one of the 90%. Find me a parent who wouldn't, want this for their child. My dd does 2 hours a day not always at night sometimes 30 mins before school. She has a thirst for knowledge and whilst this is the case I will encourage it. Next year she may not be as thirsty.

JoannaPancake · 29/02/2012 21:13

I'm confused Seeker. If grammar schools are now the preserve of over-tutored middle class kids who are only there because their parents are 'able to manipulate the system', then surely there will be sufficient bright children who don't fall into these categories to populate a 'decent-sized top set'?

AllPastYears · 01/03/2012 08:46

I was watching some of Educating Essex last night. I don't generally watch it, and only saw some of it - and of course, we get the "edited highlights"... Anyway, the top set of maths seemed to spend much of their time fussing, wandering about, getting sent out, while two of the class pursued their on-off relationship, to the point where the teacher had to intervene. Not a top set that I'd want my kids in! Or would this top set be greatly improved by the addition of a few (more) middle class children?

Original poster
bijou3 · 01/03/2012 09:23

Halfrom I totally understand where you are coming from I would do exactly the same in your situation.

Independent schools generally work a year ahead of the BC. Our school is working 2 years ahead in Maths and English there are parents at our school and others that are that are tutoring their children to be two years ahead of this (level 7) therefore creating a situation where 10 year old are (in some cases) four years ahead of the BC. It has now got to the point where bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds won?t have a chance of going to GS.

I think the whole entrance system is flawed if parents/tutors can teach to the test it?s not really testing intelligence at all.

OP posts:
PushyDad · 01/03/2012 10:08

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

From the age of 6 my kids would do 30min Kumon Maths and 30-40min music practice daily. In Year 5 we started preping them for the 11+ which meant an extra hour daily on top during school time and 4 hours during the summer break.

Now that they are at indies, Kumon has been replaced by about 2 hours homework a day.

And as before, they still have the time to watch TV, play PC games, go swimming, play badminton and hockey. More recently they have discovered the wonders of free Skype video calls so they can now spend up to an hour chatting to friends each night.

Yes, there are parents who get their kids to practice music 3 to 4 hours a day and push the kid to get 100% in every single test regardless of how unimportant the test actually is.

Those parents are taking it too far IMO but I feel that we have struck a reasonable balance with our kids.

Migsy1 · 01/03/2012 12:50

Pushydad - 4 hours 11+ practice per day during school holidays??? Shock

seeker · 01/03/2012 13:03

"Now that they are at indies, Kumon has been replaced by about 2 hours homework a day. "

Because of course state schools don't do homework......

Swipe left for the next trending thread