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?

I wondered how long it would take before the 'teachers are less inspiring in a comprehensive' line would be trotted out... Simply isn't the case. In fact, IME weaker teachers have ended up at private/grammar schools as in some ways it's a much easier ride.

APMF if grammar schools were closed down wouldn't the mix of the school that replaces them include both engaged ex grammar types and (as you termed them) apathetic pupils? With streaming in place both groups could succeed.

Can small schools adequately cater for all ranges of ability?...

Seeker. Somebody in top set for Maths is not necessarily in top set for English. My DS is top set for English not as good at Maths. There are 200 per year in that school and they manage 8 different sets including an accelerate set for A*, one for A, B, C etc in each subject. Considered a small comp.

I spoke to an ex grammar school teacher recently who had been really frustrated that those in the neighbouring secondary modern school did not have the chance to join as he felt some were brighter and worked harder but just failed on the day. There was no movement then though. Within sets or streams there is movement as this is the key difference. Putting somebody back a set can actually make them work much harder.

Losingtrust- agreed. But realistically when the barricades come down and the grammars and high schools have been closed down and reemerge as a new comprehensive, the former grammar school pupils are likely to be in the top sets of that new school. So their mummies don't need to worry about them

The problem i see with the grammar school system is, if they pick off all the 'brightest' children from an area then of course they are going to get the better results at the end of it because their starting point was so much higher. This leaves the comprehensive schools with all the rest of the children who didn't get in so their end results are bound to be lower. but then parents will look at the end results as an indication of how good the school is.

And as i said previously all parents want what is best for their children so they will do everything they can to help their child get into that school, be it paying for a tutor or tutoring themselves. These parents obviously care about their children's education but who is to say that with their natural intelligence and that level of parental support they wouldn't have done just as well at a comp? There is no way you can prove or disprove that so parents continue to fear that if they don't get into the grammar they are doomed.

Only the large three form schools fields more than a team A (we were a one form school)

As for the academics, things will not be the same for my DCs. Take the discussions we've been having recently about my DCs. Shock, horror at the two hours of homework per night. Oxbridge? Jeeze you have an unhealthy obsession with Oxbridge. And these are comments from MNetters who are teachers at comprehensives.

I am not saying that I am right and these other people are wrong. I am just saying that my DCs are currently at highly academic schools where the emphasis is on being a winner, where striving for Oxbridge is encouraged and is not seen as an obsession on the part of the parent. This ethos is contrary to that at your bog standard comprehensive. After years of coasting at their state primary they are both thriving so how can anyone say that my DCs won't lose out?

but APMF my point was that with intelligence and a diligent enthusiastic and encouraging parents who is to say that they wouldn't be thriving at the comp. Also maybe the local comp does not have the ethos "lets all go to oxbridge" because all or most of the children capable of that have gone to the grammar.

I am not saying you decision is wrong or that they don't deserve the best education but what i am saying is that with all the potential A/A* students going to grammar this fuels the reputation of the comps not achieving and the grammars being better.

As I have said I do teach in a comprehensive or strictly speaking a half way house between a secondary modern and comprehensive which has staff whose role includes encouraging and guiding those who want to apply to Oxbridge. We have visiting lecturers from universities including Oxford to work with our able students. I am not saying we have got it right. I agree with you AMPF that comprehensive schools need to do more to encourage students to apply for top universities .

@house - Sounds a bit Me Me Me I know but my obligation is to my children and their education and not to other people's.

To go back to my netball analogy, I would rather have my DD in a non inclusive team that won than in a losing team where everyone, regardless of ability, gets to play.

Like I said, my personal ethos is not the right fit for a comprehensive. The reason why I like where my DCs are now is that the parents and the school share my ethos.

Now that I see my words on my screen I can see why some people regard people like myself as 'elitist' :)

"So their mummies don't need to worry about them"

jeezus is it at all possible for you to stop with the patronising shit

I actually think it is quite a good thing for my girls to go to school where not everyone shares their ethos. If their ethos is strong enough and genuine, it will survive it, and they should see that not everyone shares it, and it should be robust enough for that. Which is has been.

Housework procrastinator: your arugment is sightly self-contradictory. The argument against GS is often that they DON'T pick off the brightest, that they take the most tutored. If that is true, then comprehensives-high schools must have their fair share of "the brightest" at the moment and have every opportunity to bring the best out of them and have great results.

So you can't have it both ways: you can't say that tutoring means grammars don't take the best, just the best tutored: and at the same time say that grammars shouldn't be creaming off the best. Because according to the other side of the argument, they're not creaming off the best.

It's not that simple, Brycie. Because if it is the case that the grammars take the most tutored (and personally I'd say it's a combination), then they are also taking the children with the most academically supportive families, the children who've been taught to work and to aspire. Who are already prepared to do well.

It makes me laugh that there is at least one poster on this thread telling the plebs that grammar schools are better when their kids are actually at private school.

Er, is that someone whose children didn't pass for the grammar school? (Or sorry, were selected as being non-academic and despatched to a Secondary Modern.)

I am arguing for comprehensives, and my children did go to comprehensives.They both certainly got as good an education as my husband and I did. I suspect my son would have been a borderline case for the grammar school - he's now the only one of my immediate family with a masters degree.

Brycie-people on here are saying that they don't actually care what happens to the 77% so long as their child is OK. Perhaps you could try having a go at them and their self centred looking after number one shit rather than scouring my posts for occasional bitchy moments.

"Like I said, my personal ethos is not the right fit for a comprehensive"

Have I missed the post where you explained this? What is your "personal ethos" which is not the right fit for a comprehensive?

Of course one of the very lovely things about a comprehensive is that there is no personal ethos that is either a right or a wrong fit. Unless your personal ethos is that children ought to be segregated according to wealth or ability at age 11, I suppose.

It would be quite interesting to do a survey on who went to comprehensives and how well they did. It always amazes me that nobody in the whole of the area that I live in seems to have this obsession with passing the 11+ because there are only one or two superselectives and places for these predominantly go to those who went to private preps. It is only really on mumsnet that I have come across such negative comments about comprehensives and the comments seem to be along the lines of knowing one child that goes to one or not wanting to risk it or based on their experience many years ago so no real experience of comprehensives. As mentioned all of my extended family went to comps because in most of the Midlands (except Lincoln) all children go to comps and all have done well. I never even questioned it when my DCs were going to seconday and I do consider myself quite a pushy mom. My friend's son has just gone to Oxford from an inner Birmingham comp and I cannot believe that he would have done any better in a grammar school, however, as one of a twin, the possibility was that one could have gone to one school and one to the other. How divisive would that have been?

I went to two comps, the first one streamed from Day one into three streams, good, average and not very clever, exactly what some people have mentioned early. I was in the top stream and we had all our lessons together, it was awful and nobody interstream talked or mixed (It was an ex-grammar). We then moved and the second school had mixed forms and then setting for different subjects. This for me was a great system and I had friends in each group, nobody really talked about what sets people were in. To me this was the best form of comp and people did move between sets every year. This is the sort of system my DS is at and the top set are told that your place is not secure and you need to keep up because there are some very good people in set 2. Those in the bottom group can move up if they work hard. This seems to keep everybody on their toes and does not lead to a general reduction but competition means overall it is a much better system. I had an interesting discussion actually with a woman my age who went to the girl's private school and she claimed that not many people from our age went to university did they? Nearly all of my friends went on to HE. One who was really good at Art and only average in other subjects got to HE and studied graphic design, now with a good job. Who knows whether she would have been encouraged to go had she gone to a secondary modern school.

@losing - In the words of Al Pacino - Are you talking to me?

We don't have GSs in my area. The comprehensives aren't that brilliant hence mine going private. You don't really think that I would be shelling out school fees if we had access to a GS do you?

Brycie.
that was actually my point that the parents that do everything to get their children in to these schools would be the same that would do anything to support their education anywhere.

"that with intelligence and a diligent enthusiastic and encouraging parents"

@seeker - Aren't you being a bit hypocritical (again)?

You want to deny parents the opportunity to choose a selective education for their DCs. Why? Because you consider the system is unfair to your DC. You want to do what is best for YOUR child. And the difference between you and a GS parent is.......?

You don't care about the 23% so please don't lecture them about how they should care about the 77%.

TOSN - Of course mine or the children's ethos will survive but returning to my earlier question, what do my children get out if it? I mean, how will my DCs be better people for this?

This forum is full of people who go on about GS/indie parents being snobs and who think that these parents 'gleefully' rub their hands at the plights of the poor. They roll their eyes at what they see as OTT parenting and a unhealthy obsession with success. AND then they go - send your kids to our school. it will make them more rounded???

Also, elsewhere we have MNetters going on about how their kids were picked on because their kids were considered to be different. Do you want to tell those parents that mixing is good for their kids?

Sorry i sent that without adding. I think that parents have a very big role in how much their children succeed no matter what sort of school. Where i live i have seen a few parents with the attitude of contempt towards the teachers and school they don't see the value of education because "it never did anything for them". these parents probably did not have a great education themselves but this attitude rubs off on their children, so i would have thought that a good encouraging attitude at home, nagging to do homework checking if homework is done etc gives that child a sense of the importance of education.