North London state primaries and tutoring. Why?

[Nlss]

Has anyone else noticed this? A lot of children in north London state primaries - the ones with the wealthier catchments - are being tutored from year 2/3?

Why is this necessary? And does this mean that teachers know - in these schools - that some gaps will be filled externally?

I have a DC who is struggling to keep up with maths this term, which had always been a favourite subject before. Apparently some children are doing secondary level maths at home. And apparently - says DC - most kids are tutored.

Wondered if anyone has any opinion / can shed some light on it all?

You’ve chosen state schools for social and ideological reasons, yet you tutor? Do you see that that’s not really different from choosing to privately educate? You’re still giving your children a paid-for advantage.

I’ve noticed that some children being tutored is bad for the untutored kids - the pace goes faster, leaving the rest further behind.

@MogdenSewage but it could be once the detail has been drilled down into.

You’re still giving your children a paid-for advantage.

Certainly, but where do you draw the line? My DC get other paid-for advantages like being taken travelling, or booked into tennis club, or to visit the theatre. These things undoubtedly confer on them unearned (by them) and paid-for privilege. It isn't fair. But where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable levels of paid-for advantage? It's think it's more complicated than you imply.

@Nlss of course tutoring gives an advantage, that's the point of it. You will never get rid of parents who can afford to give their kids an advantage, that's why the crusade against private schools is ridiculous. These parents will just invest more money into tutoring + enriching extra curricular activities.
It would be a better idea to massively fund state education in order to raise standards in ALL state schools but that would cost too much money.
Private tutoring is a massive business in this country and just creates a vicious circle of dependency.

I think you misunderstand. My children have many paid for advantages - music lessons, sports lessons, lovely holidays.

My point is that you can’t claim to be against private school for moral reasons, and tutor. I think one cancels out the other.

I’m not saying don’t tutor - go for it - I’m saying don’t think that you’re being morally superior by choosing state schools in that case.

“It would be a better idea to massively fund state education in order to raise standards in ALL state schools but that would cost too much money. “

Working conditions for teachers in many state schools are now so terrible people do not want to do the job anymore. Especially not men. Many teachers are saying it is down to poor parenting too as well as Covid as well as NHS failing children with small issues early on then becoming bigger and bigger. In addition, stressed out poor parents working all hours won’t have time to parent properly. It is quite obvious. In a system where everyone is expected to work, they have to fund childcare and education and after school club etc properly. If they don’t fund it, people will not work efficiently or will work less. Also, fit and healthy grandparents are more likely to help out in other countries (of course, people having kids later also ends up meaning less grandparental involvement although given longer life expectancy the two should really cancel each other out). We also have a massively entitled elderly generation as well which our politicians keep pandering too. Something has to change if we want to keep up living standards as a country. In other countries, there are proper support services for 65 year olds looking after grandchildren and places to go and meet up etc - if they use the right incentives structural changes can be made.

So the Government is going to have to do something about it either way. Every educated person knows that private school VAT is just a distraction.

“My point is that you can’t claim to be against private school for moral reasons, andtutor. I think one cancels out the other.”

I think you can. It is the same with the COMPREHENSIVE IDEA. They go to the same school but on the ground, there is often social segregation/set segregation especially in the more diverse comprehensive schools. The argument is that it is still better to see the other way daily, even if you do not necessarily interact fully.

Champagne socialists? Also I have friends who feel their kids need tutors for grammar school exams because everyone else tutors.

I don’t think that’s the same at all. Children being streamed based on ability in comprehensive schools helps the teaching - the children with similar ability are learning together.

Being tutored is a parent paying external person to give their child an educational advantage.

I’m not saying I’m morally opposed to tutoring or to private school; I’m saying you can’t claim the moral high ground (whatever that is) if you choose state + tutoring. You’re effectively doing the same thing private school parents are doing - paying for an educational advantage.

What about buying a more expensive house in the catchment of a “better” state school? Does that negate the moral high ground too? Or being able to afford to have a SAHP who has lots of time and energy to devote to learning at home, as opposed to a working parent who arrives home, knackered, at 6.30 and has to fit homework and reading in around tea/bath/bedtime?

For the record, I would send my kids to private school if we could afford it. A weekly 45 minute tutoring session is a drop in the ocean compared fees for a London day school, but I appreciate it’s still financially beyond many parents. I’ll keep on not voting Tory and helping with PTA fundraisers to try and improve the situation for all of the children at my kids schools, but I’ll also do what I can to give DD the best education our circumstances will allow.

“Being tutored is a parent paying external person to give their child an educational advantage.”

I have a degree from Cambridge and speak 5 languages. My husband has a Maths Degree. We never paid for a tutor. Are my children advantaged? What has payment got to do with anything?

I took the right vitamins in pregnancy and ate avocado. Are my children educationally advantaged?

My electrician sends his DC to private school because they cannot support them at home like we do and they don’t want them to end up in the wrong crowd. My next door neighbour is Russian and tutors her children for 11 plus and beyond because they are not as good at English as we are. So what? They are all doing their very best to make sure their DC grow up well and are well educated. If you are already inherently privileged you don’t need to do that.

We are all good parents and tax payers. Politician should f.. off trying to stir up toxic competition/interfere with good parents and focus on bad parents. Nothing wrong with tutoring, private school or anything else including moving into catchment/grammar etc. Healthy competition.

I think you’re deliberately missing my point.

A previous poster said she chooses to tutor and use state school because it’s the morally better thing to do. I don’t think it is: I think they’re the same (albeit one is cheaper).

FYI I’m not against private school. Or tutoring. I started the thread because I couldn’t understand why so much of it is happening in my area.

In fact, my preference would be to send my children to private school. It’s expensive, so I’m not. But the sort I’d choose wouldn’t be a hot house, it’d be a private school with lots of pastoral care.

I often do the class rep thing (this year and another). I’m a volunteer reader. I do all those things to try and make my DC’s school nicer, just like others on this thread.

I’m just saying that one poster can’t take the moral high-ground over another because they’re both effectively paying for better grades for their kids. WHICH I AM NOT AGAINST, it’s just that one isn’t more “morally correct” than the other.

When looking at state primaries in a similar area, I discovered children at the exceptional ones were all heavily tutored due to the wealthy local demographic. We debated between moving into catchment and having a similar approach or paying for private. We chose private for my career.

One is not morally better than the other - we know we are paying for the educational advantage whichever one we choose and this is where we choose to spend our income.

It is not possible to ever have a completely level playing field - children who have parents that value education will always be at an advantage. It could be through the parents education and knowledge which they pass down, cultural experiences, sports/music opportunities, holidays or tutoring. The list is endless and is is disingenuous for anyone to think it can be levelled out entirely

Payment is the entire point. The PP said that she doesn’t pay for private school because paying for school doesn’t sit well with her ideology. But she does pay for a tutor to up her children’s state school grades.

I can’t see the difference. I don’t know why you have to pit one style against the other.

I’ll repeat: I don’t think one is better or worse than the other. But I don’t think either gives you more “good person” points, so don’t try and claim them.

And yes, you gave your baby an advantage when you took vitamins. That’s amazing. I’m not saying don’t because lots of other mothers don’t get the choice. But sure, you can admit to yourself that you and your baby were lucky that you could.

Lots of us are privileged. We should own it. Of course we all do our best for our kids. And of course tutored children are at an educational advantage. Why deny it?

Thank you - I agree. This is the point I was trying to make.

For private or grammar 11+ or to be in the top set at somewhere like fortismere

Tutoring is at the next level in SW London. It is a place where the wealthy aspiring parents strive for the optimal education with extreme measures. This holds for both private and state primary schools.

This is what I hear in West London too. Some parents tutor their state educated children in primary, so they have more chances of being in top sets from the start in secondary. With that comes less disruption in class, better grades, having friends that want to study, the right crowd as such. 🤷‍♀️🤔

Some of the state secondary schools in north London also have selective entry tests (Camden, William Ellis, Mary Magdalene), which means the families able to afford tutoring or who are educated/have free time enough to tutor their children sometimes have a better chance of getting the school they want.

It might also be that parents who would otherwise choose a prep school use state primary instead but with tutoring, saving their money for private secondary.