Why is tutoring such a big deal with some people?

[APMF]

We downloaded some past papers. We 'tutored' our DCs in standard test taking techniques ie watch the clock, skip a question if you are stuck and return to it later, recheck your maths answers if you have the time and so on. Now, if parents want to pay someone to tutor their DCs in such obvious exam techniques then my rates are quite reasonable :)

After listening to so many presumably working class parents harp on about middle class parents buying a GS place for their dim? DCs, I wonder if the said parents realise how stupid they sound.

I mean, there is no secret technique that is known only to the Secret Brotherhood of Tutors. Some parents haven't the inclination to do the above and so they hire someone to do it for them. This hardly gives their kids an advantage over yours.

I get it that some of your DCs didn't pass the 11+ but why blame others for the fact that you didn't do your part as a parent or that your DC wasn't clever enough to pass?

Brycie - lots of people love an "elite," but from amongst that group there is disagreement as to how such an elite should be chosen, what characteristics they should have, at what stage in their lives they should largely be picked out and whether you can join their ranks at a later date, or whether it's OK to be labelled at one point in your life and then keep that label. There is also disagreement on how ruthless you could be in kicking people out of the "elite" if they turn out to be bright but lazy, or not as clever as you thought... There is also disagreement as to what to do with and for the "non-elite" - those who are actually essential to keep the elite propped up while they do their important work instead of the immediately essential work without which we might all starve, freeze or die of nasty infections, for which "elite" skills are not necessarily required. Elites need everyone else just as much as everyone else needs an elite, yet we don't seem to pay much attention to "non-elites" and their needs and skills, despite their huge numbers...

Why do some MNetters like seeker insist on making this a middle class thing. You don't have to be MC to download free past papers from the Internet.

Christmas - I certainly didn't mean to be hurtful, and I'm sorry that I was. My point was just that things can change from our own childhoods and school days - I too went to a bloody useless comprehensive school, but have emerged with different perspectives informed by now, rather than then.

I could say, of course, that it's a bit hurtful to people like me to read things like 'I'd never send anyone I loved to comprehensive school'!

and grammar schools don't really solve many of those issues.

Seeker:" I don't think I have assumed anything of the kind"

yes you have - "you'll all be delighted her child is not in your class" etc etc yawn"
Ah, yes. I shouldn't have said that. A rare moment of petulance. I just get very angry at the "anyone can do it" line that is always trotted out. Anybody can't. This child's family couldn't. You need to have confidence, education, time and understanding. And many families just don't. And the ones that do are largely middle class.

I'm beginning to wonder in the light of your post whether or not you know what your campaign is to be honest.

Is your campaign only to shut down grammar schools in areas where comps achieve the same results?

"I suppose many grammar school supporters would have rubbed their hqnds with glee at the prospect of one less competitor."

another rare moment of petulance?

What is your campaign exactly?

@rabbit - I don't know about you and the others but I'm talking about my DCs getting a good education and a good job as an lawyer or an architect. You seem to be talking about world domination and the 'elite'. This isn't the friggin Hunger Games.

Of course the top levels of society is heavily biased towards Public school educated upper class white people. But that is a long long way from discussing whether some bright working class kid with dim parents should be at a GS.

Seeker - Grammar school are normally where people send their children to if their child is bright, it is also very selective. So logically you would expect the results of the grammar to be the bext in the area baring any selective or superslective indies.

If the local high school results are better over a sustaaned period (there can be glitches some times) and in some cases even better than the grammar, then i would wonder what is the point of the grammar school ? the mind boggled at why parents would put their children through an exam for a school whose results are worse or on par with the local comp.

So I am not advocating for shutting down grammars but where the grammar is underperforming, then surely it should be closed.

Comp educated here and had an excellent education. Would always live in an area without grammers. Comps are now even better for brighter kids. When I was there we were only set for Maths, Languages, Science and English. Now streamed for all subjects and have much higher expectations. Those saying they would never put a child in a comp go ahead and go through the stress of the 11+ with your kids but don't assume that your opinion of comps is correct.

Ah. I didn't explain myself clearly.

Research has shown that if you have two similar catchments, one with. Comprehensive school, and one with a grammar school and a high school, then if you aggregate the results of the grammar and the high school, they will be similar to the comprehensive results. And often the comprehensive will do better. Obviously the grammar will do better than the high school.

Or on second thoughts may be not "closed" because where would all those children go ? but it needs to go and see what the local comp is doing to get such good results and implement changes immediately and also have its status changed to non selective.

The grammar school should be the trailblazer when it comes to academics not the other way round.

""I suppose many grammar school supporters would have rubbed their hqnds with glee at the prospect of one less competitor."

another rare moment of petulance?"

If you read the thread, Brycie, you will see that I had been accused of doing just that. I am, presumably allowed to defend myself a little?

Where there are grammar schools, there are no comprehensives. By definition. Except in some areas where there are only super selectives- in those areas the remaining schools are as near comprehensive as makes no difference. A school which only takes the lower 77% academically is not comprehensive.

I think we are talking at cross purposes, bulletpoint. Where there is a grammar, there is no "local comp"

You don't think then that they would "rub their hands with glee"?

What is your campaign seeker - is it just to get GS closed down where non GS results are comparable or better? That's what you seemed to indicate when you agreed with bulletpoint.

Where there is a grammar, there is no "local comp"

Yes of course! i meant high school.

Making exams untutorable is next to impossible. Prehaps it would be easier and cheaper to pay for a low income child to have ten sessions with a tutor. The pupil premium could be used to pay for this. Thankfully we don't live in a comprehensive area. There are grammar schools in the neighbouring county, but the logics of getting my son there is a sticking point.

My son goes to a tutor. He is in a group as we cannot afford individual. I am doing it to make sure that my son leaves primary school with excellent maths and english skills. Extra tution gives him the attention that his teacher does not have time to give him.

Why don't I tutor him myself.

a) I am not familiar with the methods that school uses for maths. I do not want to confuse my son teaching him the methods I did at school.

b) It is very hard to teach your own children anything.

Maybe all children should have an hour a week in a small group with teacher. Prehaps this would be a better use of taxation than some of the stupid things that schools spend money on.

Seeker I entirely agree with you. Not sure what the other posters are missing?

Grammar schools breed inequality. Resources to help parents to tutor are freely available on the web etc but critically a large section of society simply won't access them. Not because they are inherently bad parents but because it won't occur to them to do so. Not everyone has the same cultural capital as I imagine the majority of mumsnetters do.

I can't see how it is fair then that children from such families are disadvantaged by the grammar school system and the tutoring that underpins it? Not even taking into account late bloomers. How can you write off a child at such an early stage? My brother would have certainly failed the 11 plus but,through the comprehensive system we have in our county, later found his stride gaining a 1st from a Russell Group university.

As I mentioned, I do not live in a grammar school area. I went to a good comprehensive which did well for all students from the not so academic to the high fliers. Many of my peers went on to Oxbridge and a large proportion to Russell Group universities - I can count doctors, barristers, bankers, journalists and diplomats amongst my old school friends. From a comprehensive - who knew?

In fact, many people round here have the financial means to privately educate their children but choose not to. Because the comprehensive school is that good. Get rid of the grammar schools and I'd imagine this could be replicated around the country.

"You don't think then that they would "rub their hands with glee"?

What is your campaign seeker - is it just to get GS closed down where non GS results are comparable or better? That's what you seemed to indicate when you agreed with bulletpoint"

Bulletpoint and I misunderstood each other. Sadly, she hasn't joined the campaign. There is nowhere, as far as I know where the high school outperforms the grammar school. I was saying that if you compare the aggregate results of a grammar and a high school with the results of comprehensive in a comparable catchments they will be very similar and in some case the comprehensive outperforms them. This shows that abolishing grammar schools would not deprive bright children of an education. Bright children do just as well in a comprehensive school.

OBface - are you saying your comprehensives are good becuase you dont have grammars ? we dont have grammars and the comps except one Cof E are all crap!

In fact, many people round here have the financial means to privately educate their children but choose not to.

you're clearly not living in a deprived area then!

I would say it's mixed. I live in a village where the majority of people are mc but the school is a much bigger town a few miles away with a very mixed intake.

APMF - I'm not talking about world domination and an elite, except to the extent that I was, as I made clear in my post, replying to Brycie's comments about an "elite." She defined it, not me. I disagree Grammar schools are the way to find and train up the "elite" she is thinking of and disagree that they ever were set up to find such a group of people. They were just a cheap way of providing a more academic education for a minority of people, as cheaply as possible (academic subjects aren't actually that expensive to teach well) while giving no proper consideration to what to do with the rest - probably largely because the people who conceived the idea were largely privately educated and had no idea how to educate anyone in any way other than in a way which mimicked what private schools had done for centuries. Grammar schools therefore continued to reinforce the perceived superiority of private schools by aping what private schools did. If all children should receive this same sort of education, regardless of ability, as they do in private schools, then why have grammar schools at all? Why not have comprehensive schools with rigorous assessing and setting, enabling progress up and down the sets depending on genuine merit, rather than the passing of an exam at a particular age? And if some children should have an entirely different sort of education, then when is someone going to give some proper consideration to what that ought to look like?

Bulletpoint - what are you saying? That you would like a grammar school for 2% of children in your area, because the local comprehensives are crap? Wouldn't you rather the local comprehensives weren't crap? Or are you happy with crapness for 98% of people in your area? What exactly is your point?

On threads like this someone invariably post that they can't see what is wrong with comprehensives. After all, the local rich folks send their kids to their comp.

If you have rich folks as your neighbours then something tells me that yours isn't a typical comprehensive.