Is it the norm to have tutors for primary school children these days?

[Sugarbeach]

I didn't think it was the norm, but it seems that it is the norm in some part of the country (or the world even). DD is progressing well and is happy at her school, she is about to start Yr 3 where the work is expected to be more formal and there will be a ramping up of the homework I imagine. I was going to just leave the school and teacher to do their job, and not intervene too much unnecessarily. I'm paranoid and thinking whether the majority of children get lots of tutoring at home, so that it seems to be a good school or whether it IS a good school.

So..
is tutoring the norm in your opinion?
Is it mainly done for struggling subjects, or to hot house, or for 11+, or to make up or the lack of teaching at school?

I'm interested to know, it's so different to my days, I feel like I've been living under a rock....

I'm not sure anyone is really saying tutoring is always wrong, are they? Or that tutoring is always right? I thought people were discussing whether it was now the norm to tutor, what "tutoring" means and, if it is now the norm, whether it is right that it should be considered the thing to do regardless of the reasons for doing it (even if the only reason is that everyone else appears to be doing it, so it must therefore be necessary)?

Sorry I was posting and rushing off.
I didn't mean this thread in particular. It just seems one of those subjects where people are made to feel bad whatever they do.
Personaly I am not keen on tutoring and wouldn't do it unless there wer extraordinary circumstances.

A few times I have been told I obviously do not care about my children and if I did I would find a way of paying for it. Also that I lack ambition for my kids

But have seen equally unpleasant accusations levied against pro tutoring parents.

MrsDeVere - I don't think either of those extremes have featured on this thread. Those in favour of tutoring have been somewhat on the defensive, largely, so certainly no grandiose claims about lack of tutoring implying neglect. As for the reverse, there have been suggestions that parents who tutor do so because they are lacking in confidence say - but that's about as aggressive as it's got.

Yellowtip - yes, it is really striking, isn't it. It was nothing like that in my day - somewhat the reverse, actually. The school has changed its entrance exam this year to remove NVR and so focus more on VR and English - wonder if that will alter the trend at all? I do remember looking round at an Open Day recently and looking at a piece of written work in one of the exercise books on display and wondering why I had to reread it several times and still couldn't really understand what it was arguing (history essay or some such). t was only after a few reads it suddenly occured to me that that was because it was written by a non-native speaker and used lots of grandiose language - but despite the superficially favourable impression was actually total gibberish.

At least 20% of my DD's Y6 are being tutored, either by their parents or paid tutors. It may be that the figure is higher as some parents are reluctant to admit using tutors. We live in an 11+ area and most of the DC receiving tuition are being tutored in order to try for a place at a super selective Grammar School. Some are being tutored simply because our Primary School is pretty poor academically. All but one of our local secondary schools are undesirable options. The one school considered 'good' by Ofsted is, unsurprisingly, heavily oversubscribed.

I have tutored both my DC myself as I have the time, ability and patience to do so. If this weren't the case, I would not hesitate to pay someone else to do the same. Tutoring is not the norm in my area but it's far from being unusual either.

bread, the fact that you did not understand big words says more about you than the non native writer
How is the writers nationality relevant ? How can you tell just by a name they were not British?!

Silibilimili - I think you'll find that breadandbutterfly was being kind to the writer of the piece by assuming that their inaccurate and inappropriate use of long words was because they were not a native speaker... Have you never tried to look up words in a dictionary in a foreign language and ended up plumping for ones that, according to the dictionary, ought to be acceptable, but to a native speaker who doesn't need a dictionary, they are clearly totally inappropriate, even if the individual words are quite impressive??... I remember once when I was quite young telling a French lady that my cat had been spilt (like a bottle of milk) by a car, because one translation for the French word I used in the dictionary was "knocked down"... I realised quite quickly I'd got that one wrong when she started tittering...

rabbit, bread has use the word 'grandiose' to describe the text. Not 'inaccurate or incorrect. So I understand what you are saying (eg, in English, one can give directions, first you go right, then you go wrong '.) however, this is not what is being said.
I take part in recruitment for my company. I read people answers to questionnaires. I generally pick the simplest examples in terms of use of language. This is about communication skills. The simpler you can explain something the more people you are going to reach. It means the person has good communication skills. Even
More important in my 'scientific' role. This has nothing to do with the persons immigration status. More to do with communication skills.

There is a very thin line between racism and stereotyping.

Well I understand exactly the sort of piece bread is describing and I'd have thought grandiose would be exactly the right fit.

I've looked at a couple of other schools and can't see such an obvious divide between numbers sitting sciences and arts. It's really interesting - racial stereotyping or not. It never occured to me previously that this polarisation might take place. Our own school has equal numbers sitting Chemistry and History. I'm about to dial up other obvious names, expecting to find a geographical (and therefore racial) divide.

Observations about trends within racial groups isn't synonymous with racism.

Silibili - I have no idea of the name of the pupil concerned - my judgement was based not on any 'racist' sterotyping (unlikely as I have a foreign name myself and would be unlikely to 'judge' others on this basis!) but on the basis of my professional judgement - I teach English as a foreign language so am used to recognising the signs of language used inappropriately by non-native speakers.

You seem, yet again, to be determined to see some dastardly attempt to put down people who do not have English as a first language or insult all immigrants etc - i am beginning to find this attitude rather tedious. It is hardly controversial to suggest that someone who does not have English as a first language or use English at home may struggle with the finer points of the language - my parents (both of whom have English as a second language, I should add) would have no problems acknowledging this.

It is in no way a reflection of their general intelligence, achievements,motivation, etc etc ad nauseam, but a comment specifically on their English language skills.

Or to put it another way, I learned French as a second language and have lived briefly in France. My standard of French is nowhere near fluent. If a French person was to exclaim that my French was not up to his level and you accused him, as a result, of 'racism', both I and the French speaker would think you needed your head seeing to.

Yellowtip - I think,as silibili herself posted earlier (apparently not an exampole of racist stereotyping when she does it, though ), that following occupations like medicine etc is very popular among children from eg Asian backgrounds in the UK. It is hard to know how much this preference for following medicine or related professions (dentistry, pharmacology, etc) is the cause of the high numbers of science A Levels taken at schools with a high proportion of children from these backgrounds, or conversely, the result of focusing on their strengths? Certainly, in many cultures, eg Chinese, I believe, maths and science skills are particularly highly prized, so one woud expect children from those cultures to be pressurised or influenced to focus on those subjects over arts subjects.

rabbitstew - yes, I remember our French teacher telling us that we must never, when in France, tell our host we wanted no more to eat as we were 'plein', as apparently this was slang for 'pregnant', rather than 'full', in French! I have no idea if this is the case as was too scared to use it!

I'm absolutely certain that the reason for Humanities apparently withering on the vine at your old school will be down to parental pressure the other way. That seems sad, for a number of reasons. As far as focussing on their strengths is concerned, I doubt that the genes of these girls are so arranged that a staggering 91 have a particular strength for Maths while in the same cohort only 13 have a bent for History.

But the genes aren't random - they are chosen based on the entrance exam, which until now required girls to pass a NVR and VR exam before qualifying for the second round of English and maths; girls brilliant at English but poor at NVR wouldn't get a look-in. That has now been changed. Moreover, the exams had become very highly tutored for of late, meaning that natural ability was probably being drowned out by wealth/pushiness of parents who may have wanted a return on their investment - none of these low-paying arts degrees thank you! The new exams are supposedly untutorable for (Durham CEM), so there may be more of a mix of candidates this year at least (until professional tutors/avid parents figure out a way to game the system).

It's a shame,though, as classics was a particular strength when I was there - unusual for a state school.

I loved geography and history and english literature while at school. However, history does not pay well. At best I would have ended up at the British museum in the archives brushing old bones. No indiana jones lifestyle I am afraid. Specially living in the uk. So being good at both science and arts, I chose science so that my options are not narrowed. It is a shame but it's supply and demand at play again. I enjoy what I do and I think I chose wisely. Love for the arts can many times be pursued as a hobby. Whereas science is harder to get back into.
I mentored a 14 year old some time ago on her 'bring your daughters to work' day. She was a brilliant student. Her dad was my colleague (very academic, with a phd in physics, best in his profession etc). The daughter was specially talented in music and mathematics.
Her dad was pushing her towards a scientific career. She wanted to be a pop star and pursue music.
What is right ? A life long skill that will pay the bills or chasing a dream?

It'll be interesting to see how the profile of the student body changes. And if it does, whether the results change slightly too. I understood that the Durham tests - which sound great - are very expensive to use and that that was a deterrent factor for some grammars in introducing them. Genes should still be relatively random though with NVR and VR I'd have thought. And other schools where the investment is frankly eye-watering have nothing like as narrow a spread. Still, the fact that the senior team are making the changes suggest that they see a problem. And it's interesting that the HT has a background in English.

I think that History probably leads to more than museums silibili.... And isn't it good to chase dreams while you're young? Choices are rarely as stark as either life-long servitude in a science lab or the streets in any event.

No point doing sciences just because you are good at them if you have no interest in a scientific career. There are actually an awful lot of well paid careers which don't require a science background. Also, we need some people to follow their dreams and take the risks or we would live in a very dull world indeed. In any event, it's not as if the majority of great inventions, discoveries, artistic creations, etc, of the past were made by people taking the sensible, safe, well-paid and stable career options of the day.

rabbit and yellow, agree with you. No point in pursuing something you are not interested in. But at 13, what do you know (when you are choosing your gcses? ) or even at 16, when you are selecting a level subjects. If all other things are equal (interest and talent) then why not pursue something that is stable?
Agree also that the world would be boring if there were no artists, musicians etc. but unless you are very good and lucky, these careers IMHO more difficult to break into and earn a decent wage from. The top paying careers are still science or mathematics based.

You don't have to do sciences with maths A-levels...

Since there is a relatively small number of selective secondary schools in this country and, of those, a lot simply have a pass mark, professional tutoring can't be the norm.

However, for the people who are going for few super selective I don't doubt that there is a lot of pressure to prep the kid.

In threads like this those with anecdotes of 5 yr olds being heavily tutored dominate and so give the impression that it is the norm.

Oops. Just realised I posted to an old thread bumped by someone touting for business.