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?

Which I would say is a pretty noble aim, actually! Someone's got to.... And as OB says, if some are getting a* it is clearly possible and the teaching is clearly going up to that level.

I don't know: it might be that the school is lacklustre and doesn't care at all about its brightest students; I'm not ruling it out, but nor am I ruling out the possibility that actually that's not really the case.

To be fair, if they were churning out more a*s but not getting the magic five for most pupils, one could probably make an argument for them not being a very good school in other ways, and say they obviously focused all their time on the cleverest whilst leaving the rest to fester....

But how can it be that so few children manage an A*?

How can that be anything other than evidence that the bright are not being properly challenged?

I'm seriously failing to find any other explanation since this school has below average stats for FSM and SEN.

You know the intake though, and I don't: can't sensibly say much about it, can I?
The stats for 'high achievers' starting year 7 are useful. Although they do include level 4 SATS as 'high achievers', so might bump up the numbers rather more than one might expect.

The OFSTED report states that the number of students on FSM is 'well below average' so this is not a disadvantaged intake at all.

A nice cohort I'd say. A faith school too.

It does very well by its pupils with SEN and brilliantly well with its average student. But the top end are simply not catered for. There'sno doubt they'd do better in the grammar school inthe neighbouring county .

I think you highlight the problem with some schools wordfactory - some of them rest on their laurels and don't add the value that they should.

I think it is very difficult to cater in a single establishment (let alone a single classroom) for the full range of abilities and do them all justice and take them as far as their potential allows. Certainly in France, where education is comprehensive until age 15, many so-called surdoués (gifted) children are bumped up a year as that is the only way the system allows for them to be stretched.

No, I didn't mean disadvantaged so much as the 'high achiever' 'middle achiever' bit on the new pages for schools, but I found it through quite a convoluted web trail and can't remember the link.

Thing is I'm not some rabid supporter of the GS system. I can see its draw backs and divisiveness. But I just remain unconvinced that provision for able children in the comprehensive system is consistently good. I wonder whether it can be on a macro level?

I'm not sure I agree Bonsoir.

You certainly can't cater for all abilities in a single class but is very achievable through streaming at school level. The majority of the country is without grammar schools and still produce high achieving students.

Are those in favour of the grammar system happy to live with the fact that there will be a large proportion of children (having failed a single test at a particular age and who may not have had parents who were engaged enough to adequately prepare them for it) being channelled into a school where it is already decided they are not high achievers and not given the support to be one in the future?

Failing a child at 10 and let's face it, hardly any children will be 11 takes no account of late developers or those who plateau. I know many bright people including lawyers who failed the 11+ but went on to do well academically later and many bright kids at 11 who went on to completely mess up their A'Levels after only doing averagely well in their gcse's. comprehensives allow changes between streams. A system based on an exam at ten offers bright late developers or those who are average but really hard working sweet FA. My mom was a kid who was bright at 11 going to grammar school and lost all interest at 14, my dad failed, fourth kid of single widowed mom who had no time to spend helping him ended up at secondary modern and only when he got to an apprenticeship did his intelligence come through and he got an HND. So his mom should have sat down with him in between cleaning jobs and do lots of practice papers. Come on folks real world. Comps give all kids a chance. Grammar schools only have kids whose parents are bothered or who have the time to do it which writes off many future lawyers and doctors. My family all comp educated in different areas and leas so no one bias include consultant doctors, lots of chartered accountants, pension manager, bbc director, NHS Managers, teachers. This thread has discussed one school that did not get many A *s. the point is one school which is being shown as an example of why comps are failing. It is just a waste of time discussing it and Word on another thread you said how uninterested those parents were so hardly representative. Look at some of the excellent comps in deprived areas that have been mentioned on previous threads for all those who say that middle class area comps and faith schools do better. Often those schools rest on their laurels. The faith school near us is nowhere near the best academically. Look at an example such as Waverley School in Birmingham. Lots of fsm and their high achieves average gcse result is A which is better than many in the suburbs.

Just in from work and have not read all the thread but firstly I have not failed my children and it is an oversimplification to say that I put their social life before their school work.

We all make a judgement on what is best for our family and include in that our own moral compass. My children are lucky that they live on the edge of the grammar system and have access to a secondary school that offers them as much if not more than the grammar. So I have looked at what would give my children a richer experience and greater opportunities in life. That could be dedicating few hours of week and a lump of money to tutoring or allowing them to indulge their passions of dance, rugby, sailing, drama, horse riding etc. I think they are served better by dedicating that financial pot and time to the things that they are truly passionate about. I also think that my children already have a great deal of advantage in life, they don't need an extra boost from tutoring.

My eldest son has aspergers and is in a grammar school not because it offers an elitist form of education but because I wanted to get him away from a group of boys who were bullying him. He wanted to go to the grammar , solely for this reason. In some ways I was lucky that he did not need tutoring as he is off the scale clever because he is often locked in his own world of books and study rather than socialising. However there are two things that my son enjoys doing, sailing and painting and these are a huge emotional release for him. Therefore I allowed him to continue sailing and going to his art group rather than tutor him. I knew that he was likely to come near to top of the test and that if he didn't we would get him in on appeal because of the bullying which was making him feel suicidal. So again it made little sense to waste time tutoring him.

My second daughter is not as academic, I think she will come out with mainly A and B grades at GCSE. She did not really ever seriously wanted to go to the grammar however she is very competitive and I think that she wanted to know if she was clever enough to get in. She sat the test out of sheer curiousity and managed to my surprise get an offer which she did not accept. She again was too busy to be tutored and I knew that a grammar would not suit her. She likes male company and she is something of a Mummy's girl and I knew that she wanted to come to school with me. I knew that she would probably make it into top sets and would be served well at the comprehensive. She also does a lot of sport with local teams and I knew that she would not want to have to commute in and out of school because that would eat into her sport time.

My third child is in year 6 and had no interest in the grammar at all and did not even want to sit the test. She is hoping for level 6 in Maths and English and a high level 5 in science and therefore I suspect that she will go into top sets. She is something of a madam and therefore she was told at the start of Year 6 that it she did not work harder and achieve levels I knew that she could I would get her a tutor and she would be entered for the grammar. The thought of the grammar was enough to get her working at full throttle.

We all make decisions for the children that we have , with the time and financial resources that we have.

I guess I am lucky that with one exception it practically suited me to put into action my beliefs about educational selection. I do think that in an ideal world we should try and think of the greater good as well as our own children . The grammar system round here is divisive and again I am lucky that I have been able to blend the greater good with the needs of most of my children .

As an aside, my son continued to be bullied at the grammar school, the only way we managed to solve it was by widening his social circle through sailing .

For all those who talk about no need for tutoring and it is easily done speak now if you are a single mother working full time with more than one child.

My cousin left the super selective in Birmingham only about nine years ago so fairly recent due to bullying. It was rife. He did get a first from Bristol uni and therefore moving away from the grammar to the local comp did him no harm at all. Psychologically though it was far better for him to go to the local school with no traveling across the city. Sometimes local school environments do suit a lot of kids. It is not lazy parenting or kids but the time spent traveling can be spent working and having a social life to achieve the same resukts happier. Again anecdotal so I do apologies but then there have been a lot of anecdotal comments on this thread. I went to a crap vino so they are all crap. I went to a good one so they are all good.

APMF my son got in with no tutoring because he is exceptionally clever and is often locked in his own world of study. That is why the extra curricular activities are so important .

I think the year that my dd entered the cohort may have been a little weaker . My son also told her what to expect and she comes from a family with lots of typical "middle class" advantages . She was also under no pressure at all as beyond wanting to match her brother she had no interest in doing well,

Am catching up with the thread and thankyou for your apology LMPF.

Education is something that we all care passionately about and to be honest I would rather have a passionate discussion with someone about education even if we disagree than have a bland one with someone that agrees with me,

As I have dealt with my brighter pupils today I have been asking myself am I giving you as good an education ( or even better ) as you would get in the grammar. That is because of this thread , so thankyou

Brycie I am something of a confusion because I anti selection but have a reputation at work as being an elitist . I think you can be anti selection but still push academic achievement.

LaQueen perhaps yes you may see a bias towards children of educated etc parents in the top sets but critically no-one will have been written off labelled a success or failure at the age of ten and there is still the opportunity to move up sets if you show the necessary progress.

Because its relatively easy to move sets, you can still be in a form together, you can still sing in the choir and play hockey together, and you don't have a school where you go if you fail and where there's no expectation of academic success as something which anyone you encounter in your school will achieve. I like that model.

Hello arisbottle
"I think you can be anti selection but still push academic achievement."
So do I but while we're stuck with poor standards in many areas in the early years and upwards, selection is the only option if you want a sustained focus on academic achievement. And I don't think you can do anything about the freedom of choice involved in private selection.

The focus should still be on raising overall acheivements for those without natural advantages - not lowering them for those with natural advantages.

Seeker:"in some cases the comp is better and this is is a sustained result, i'd probably agree with you to shut the grammar school down, its a waste of space."

not difficult to understand at all , and I think your "campaign" is misguided, but probably well intentioned

LaQueen, that is partly going to be true whatever system as there is likely to be a genetic influence as well as nurture. A mom with a high IQ more likely (but not always to have a child with high IQ). This would also have more involvement at primary school level so potentially in the first year at a comp that would be the case. However, the kid may not work very hard and be passed by a child who works hard and does not have as high an IQ as the other one but hard work means they do better. Surely you saw that happening when you were a kid. I did all the time and I was good at 11 but overtaken as I got older by those who worked harder. If the school was purely based on an exam at 10, the second child would have been written off, told he was thick basically compared to the other child and not choose an academic career. This is what happened in the times when 11+ was rife. In a comp he could move up to the acadamic stream and potentially go to a much better uni that the child with a high IQ because he deserves it, the other doesn't. This is when the child makes the decisions more themselves and not the parents. Would you rather employ somebody that grappled to achieve themselves or benefitted from an over involved parent. I know who I would respect more and employ due to their hard work.

Brycie there are so few areas where the 11+ is common in this country that your point is a bit mute in the UK. As there are so many more comprehensive schools in the UK in my opinion more government resources should be spent on improving those that fail rather than introducing any more grammar schools and less on the grammar schools in existence which should be gradually closed.

Because its relatively easy to move sets, you can still be in a form together, you can still sing in the choir and play hockey together, and you don't have a school where you go if you fail and where there's no expectation of academic success as something which anyone you encounter in your school will achieve. I like that model.

Really good point!

But the reality in many non-grammar school areas is that comprehensives are still not truly comprehensives but selective by postcode or faith.

Where we live is a typical example of this; there are faith schools which do well and select by faith AND catchment, one comprehensive that does extremely well but has a tiny catchment where house prices are hugely inflated and the other 2 comprehensives do very badly indeed. Anyone who can moves, gets a faith or goes private. Hardly the shiny fair system that we would all love to have...