Changes to 11-plus to stop middle-class parents 'buying' access to grammars by hiring tutors

[breadandbutterfly]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241411/Changes-11-plus-stop-parents-buying-access-selective-schools-hiring-tutors-children.html

Similar article in the Times apparently but paywall.

tutoring = mass hysteria?

Er not really!

Letty- I hate to break it to you, but it is very unlikely your son had the best marks in the county in his SATs. There are a finite number of marks you can get, and it is pretty unlikely that only one child in the county got full marks. Full marks is brilliant, though. But he probably wasn't alone in that.

Thing is though, I shout enough at my kids already. I work FT as does DH, and when I spend time with DD1 I would rather do things we both enjoy.
Lucky for me I am, though time poor,
relatively cash rich, so have paid for a tutor to give DD extra support bc. she doesn't get 1:1 at school; this is moving to. 11+ type practice now she is on Y5, but she does enjoy it. She is achieving in the middle of the top half of the year, so teachers see her as doing fine; I think she could do better (but i was a high achiever and expect my kids to be the same!)
I feel guilty bc I hate the selective system, but I justify a tutor by thinking of my teacher friends who haven't had a tutor but who have used their teaching skills and experience with their own DC. I am horribly aware though that it doesn't feel any better in my heart than paying for private school, which I am massively against due to reasons of fairness. But we live in11+ area (I was totally unaware when we moved here or we would have chosen a house with a local comprehensive...Though even then we would have looked for a house near a good comp.. So in the end, it is hard to avoid buying privilege for your DC if you are lucky enough to be able to afford it!)
Sigh.. in the end I just want a good comp to be there for every child, why can't we just do that??

I don't want a good comp to be there for every child - I want a good school for every child that is suitable for them and their needs. That might be a comp. Or it might be a grammar or a faith school or a SEN chool etc. I'd like to extend to include technical, vocational etc schools for those with talents and interests in those directions too.

Not one size fits all - because kids aren't identical.

But that's just daft. I mean, not every child will ever get that choice. And who decides what is best for an individual child? What if the wrong choice is made (presumably by the parents?) You can't have a broad selections of faith schools, a grammar, a comp, a special this that and the other, with enough spaces to make the options all available to every child in all parts of the country.
A proper comprehensive system, with good schools that meet the needs of all abilities and most children, however, that is achievable and affordable. Then people can pay for silly hats and polo ponies if they like but the next generation will all get some kind of opportunity.

However, I do know that in a GS you simply won't get the classroom disruption and hassle which I have observed again and again, even in good comprehensives.

I wouldn't be too sure of that LaQueen The behaviour at my Grammar School was pretty poor, and recently a friend on a PGCE placement in a Bucks Grammar school was tearing her hair out at the behaviour of the pupils.

Personally I think parents tutor because standards are so low in state junior schools. There is a massive jump between junior and senior schools; this gap needs to be bridged if children are to be given a fair chance at attaining a GS education. My year 5 is already working at level 6/7 in maths and English thanks to his private school education, why can?t state schools give children the same start in life. I would start formal education at 3 and stop all this namby pamby learning through play rubbish.

They do Binky. Some, at least ...My DS is is a state primary Y5 and working to the same standards.

"I would start formal education at 3 and stop all this namby pamby learning through play rubbish."

How can you expect to be taken seriously? I guess you just enjoy winding people up!

Dinky

Able children in state juniors can get access to secondary teaching if they are working at that level. I do feel the need to defend state schools; they can work brilliantly, especially in areas not blighted by grammars, private schools and indies (never understood what they are, but don't exist here.)

By the state school standard my dc is expected to achieve at least 4a in all subjects. Although I am very pleased with dc?s progression. However to stand a chance for a grammar school place dc needs to be at level 5 by the end of y6. The whole thing just doesn?t make sense. We are not teachers so pay for tutoring. We are not rich either but just not to have holidays away instead. Only if we are in a catchment of good schools I wouldn?t bother. 11+ should be abolished. No matter how you change the system rich people have the power to find their ways to take advantages of it.

You could still achieve higher standards by the top years of primary without starting formal education earlier eg at 3. Three and four years olds learn best through play - this can be structured and supported play it doesn't have to just be a free for all !

How can you expect to be taken seriously? I guess you just enjoy winding people up!

No I don't enjoy winding people up. My DD went to a nursery where they taught maths and English from the age of 3, most children have the capacity to learn letters, sounds and first sight words at 3 and its the same for maths.

I always think a good analogy would be with teaching calculus.
Just because you wanted all your year 11's to understand it really well - and get A's in their GCSE maths - doesn't mean you'd start teaching it in reception.

Or to teach Pythagoras theorem it might be best to start off by learning what a triangle looked like !

JugglingWithPossibilities The only difference between state and private at infant and junior level is the fact that they start formal education earlier.

That and the silly hats.

Three and four years olds learn best through play

What do they actually learn?

I think there might be other differences - smaller classes and better educated parents come to mind as the major factors which would make a difference.

What do they actually learn (through play) ?

Well they develop their language and communication skills. They develop good dispositions and attitudes to learning, such as perseverance and confidence. They improve their social skills such as learning to share. They develop their imaginative play and explore different creative mediums. They develop an interest and respect for the natural world and the ability to explore and investigate their environment. They learn about one another's families and cultures through celebrating festivals together and opportunities to talk and listen to each other's experiences.
All of these things can be explored and developed through a play based curriculum/ environment.

Why do 3 year-olds need formal education to do basic stuff like recognise first sight words? My toddler recognises a few words and that's just because he sees them when he's playing and watching TV.

I feel, again, a bit of a lone vpice in thinking isn't all about results, levels etc.

" my child is top set" , " my child is predicted a level 4a or a 5", " my children can start writing counting at 3".

Is education really about grades? It is part of it, but to me developing an interest in subjects such as history and science, and learning how to learn, and how to think logically are actually more important.

"learning how to learn, and how to think logically are actually more important"

YY, and I'd add learning how to think creatively too and to work in a team with others, and that's why we need to value children's innate learning process - which is play

My kids went to a nursery where they were teaching letters and sounds at 3. The owner of the nursery used it as a big selling point. I thought it was a load of pants. There is plenty of research that shows that it makes no difference to final outcome whether a child is taught to read pre-school or not.
Do early walkers walk better than late walkers by the time they get to age 11?

Exactly PlaySchool .... mind you I don't mind a bit of Jolly Phonics in reception
"A, A, ants on my arm" song, that sort of thing.
As long as there's plenty of time and attention to play as well.