g and t - really or just tutored?

[2stixoftwix]

At my daughter school year 6 there are now 3 extra after school sessions , maths (level 6). English ( level 6) reading( level 6). I picked up my daughter from her after school clubs, and watched the kids come out who attended these sessions.
(About 15 in each class) every single one apart from 2 had / are being tutored and went in for the 11+ (4 got in)
So not really g & t. Just tutored.

I know this probably only applies to my DDS school, but it seems that the other kids who need extra help don't get it

Are these actually targeted G&T sessions or just the school trying to ride on the coat-tails and grab some extra SATs points?

Does your DD need extra help?

I think people who tutor their children through the 11+ are doing them a massive disservice. If they need tutoring thorugh it then they may well struggle at grammar school and i know a lot of teachers who have noticed this.

My DD is tutored (at an astronomical cost!!! ) because she is dyslexic and the school, whilst they try, are unable to give her the specialist support she needs.

My lovely, bright, DD is considerably behind her peers - this has taught me not to compare with other children and i feel desperately sorry for those parents who are so pushy that they feel they have to push their already bright children, its too much pressure.

With regards to your OP, it doesn't matter what other children are doing - so long as your DD is getting the support she needs at school, if she isn't then make an appointment to see the head and ask why not.

Even very bright kids might need some tutoring for 11+ as it's quite a different type of test.
Most children being tutored and put in for 11+ will be naturally academically inclined. Ditto for level 6 SATS.
I would suggest its a bit of both. Even the best tutor can't get a child to level 6 at age 11 if they do not already have natural ability.
I'm uncomfortable with the label gifted and talented as it implies a level above the usual. In reality it usually just means the best 10% in any one school. Due to socio-economic factors the top 10% in some schools might contain kids who would only fall in the middle at other schools.
These after school sessions are not gifted and talented, they are booster sessions to teach the level 6 curriculum that these children wouldn't normally see in whole class lessons.

So what about the very bright children who need tutoring for the 11+ but parent's can't afford it?

I think it's all about SATs scores. I just find it all a bit crazy when the parents are going on about level 6 and the next breath is how their children spent the summer hols being tutored. My daughter struggles at English but is great at maths and reading ( not that she ever reads a book) but there is no extra help for the average child, just those that the school wants to reach the level 6 points on sats

Well our school is offering booster classes for all our children. Free.
Any child wanting extra help is being given it. Including those hoping for level 6.
There are free online resources for the 11+.
Is it a fair system? Maybe not. I'm not sure I have an answer to that!
I do know that tutoring alone does not get you a place at Grammar school.

"i feel desperately sorry for those parents who are so pushy that they feel they have to push their already bright children, its too much pressure."

I don't. Contempt sometimes, but not pity. However we had no selective secondary schooling (and the accompanying arms race) on the horizon.

It wouldn't be fair to have a child who is ready to start grade 5 level with some musical instrument being taught grade 3. Or vice versa. It's not that different for L6.

Let us guess, 2stix, 'Outstanding' school in the leafy suburbs of a grammar school county?

I suppose some people want to publicly revel in their kids' achievements however they got there.

Lack of tutors must be why our school is only putting 5 or 6 kids into the L6 math test, and none for reading :).

Academic ability is a combination of natural ability and education. The former is unalterable, but the later is. I agree that in state schools, every child should be given the same support to improve. There is, however, nothing to stop people putting the work in with dc at home. There are plenty of free online resources.

Some people think academic ability is an extremely desirable thing for their children to have and a realisation that they have to put in some effort if they want to achieve will also be an advantage to them in life. It is a balance of this and having time also to play and enjoy childhood.

I find it annoying when people claim their dc has had no input and is entirely self taught or the claim that other are being pushy by tutoring whereas they have legitimate reasons. Everyone who tutors is doing it to improve their children, regardless of their child's natural ability.

'just tutoring' will not a get a child to level 6 ability, if they do not have the natural ability in the first place.
DD has been well above average in terms of levels since she started school. No extra tutoring. She taught herself to read at just 4. Has always been inquisitive and keen to learn about everything.
We are in a super-selective grammar school area, and also wanted to try for some local indies at 11+, so had some tutoring beforehand to get her familiar with exam structure and technique. It didn't work for the grammar, but did for the indies - or was it her natural ability?
She is now receiving an extra English session a week at school prepping for L6 (we weren't asked, consulted or even informed - it just happened). It's a big 3 form outstanding primary - last year apparently they entered 18 kids and only 2 achieved L6. They have said they do not expect any to pass?! they have a higher success rate for L6 maths, but I think that is usually the case?
It seems that most of the kids have had some form of extra maths support or English support in after-school sessions to help them 'achieve their full potential' in the SATs.

Outside the UK "gifted" would be considered the top 2.5% or roughly one child per class - not 15 out of a year group.

So not gifted but probably very able.

We've steered clear of tutoring or any form of "getting ahead" of the syllabus and DD is still doing very well. She may not have the same "levels" as a tutored child but I have no doubt that she has a broader skill/knowledge set than tutored peers, since time spent on pushing ahead of the school curriculum has to be at the expense of something else. She's also a motivated independent learner (eg has recently taught herself to speak Italian) - something which over-tutored and spoon-fed children often struggle with.

I don't know about modern practices. I am foreign and I was tagged "Gifted" in the 1970s, maybe 2-4 kids from each class were in our G programme.

"I find it annoying when people claim their dc has had no input and is entirely self taught"

Y7 DD didn't need or want our help and has genuinely taken care of the overwhelming majority of school-stuff by herself ;b

Which is a definite luxury for me because there's more room for [other stuff]. I suppose you could argue that I'm trying to improve my child much like anyone else, but have different views on what makes an improved child. However one difference between me and some of our most irksome parents in this non-selective area is the motive i.e. I'm not driven by relative rankings. Neither is very modest DD who tends to care about what she can do on her inscrutable terms, not whether she can do it better than...

"pushing ahead of the school curriculum has to be at the expense of something else."

Quite. For some areas there is no resistance so my DD wouldn't need "pushing" so to speak, but I've always been very conscious of keeping future options open by not letting her become too dedicated to something at a relatively young age. They could have sunk themselves into X, but then they wouldn't have done Y which suits them more etc.

"last year apparently they entered 18 kids and only 2 achieved L6."

Reading? Passes have been quite rare since L6 was revived and the 2014 L6 SAT was very broken in year-on-year comparability terms (logically the pass rate should have increased a little but it plummeted). With it being such a minority interest that will be discarded in 2016 They[tm] haven't bothered to explain what happened.

I was thinking more of the "My two year old taught themselves to read" or "My reception child has worked out most of the primary maths curriculum already." Of the incredibly early readers there are those with parents who have helped them to learn to read and those with parents who lie.

These threads always intrigue me. There seem to be polar opposites on the tutoring divide.

some children will naturally sit down and want to learn as the pp child who has taught herself to speak Italian. Other children especially Boys ime need more encouragement and that can be in the form of an external tutor or a parent. Some parents don't have the time to work with free online resources so pay someone else to do it. I can't really see what the issue is.

Of course some poor children have no help whatsoever but I would suggest that by virtue of the fact you're posting on mumnet we're interested all interested in our children but just approach it in different ways.

DS has a tutor once a week - we are in a grammar area and most people have tutors or are at private primary school but hoping to switch to state grammar. His tutoring is not just for 11+ - it is for useful stuff to know in life generally and he quite often tells me stuff that he learnt at Mrs X.

If his school wants to give him extra sessions in anything that's their prerogative - they have quite a lot of small group sessions for all sorts of subjects and children anyway.

I was thinking more of the "My two year old taught themselves to read"

Fair enough. We had lots of trips to the library, reading integrated into the bed-time routine and plenty of quite good books as birthday and xmas presents etc.

I was rubbish at that infant genius angle and didn't pay attention to much besides happy or sad until around Y3 (school didn't tell us anything much until we got to my favourite teacher in Y5). In part that's because I had a "thing" about not knowing too much, because it felt like that would collapses possibilities and constrain DD to a more deterministic future: a child can do anything, whereas a bright child is expected to do bright child things etc.

Imperial I suppose I would distinguish between tutoring for a purpose and "anxious parent" tutoring.

It makes absolute sense to organise a few tutoring sessions for a child sitting the 11+ (because widespread tutoring means it's not a level playing field without) or if your child has specific difficulties. My son - who would be considered G&T in the UK although he is probably just able rather than "gifted" - has some minor difficulties with expressing himself in writing. He'd get a few tutoring sessions if it was necessary (although, as it happens, a wait and see approach appears to have paid off and he's had a bit of a breakthrough in his own).

I'm much less sure of the benefits of "getting ahead" type tuition - tutoring for SATs etc or because little Johnny is such a maths genius that the school just can't meet his needs. I'm not sure what is gained in the end. Either the child learns a few things that they will learn anyway in due course and gets an extra level in their SATs, but it doesn't affect long term outcomes. Or you're reinforcing a particular learning towards a subject (which the child is gifted at and will remain gifted at whatever you do) at the expense of all the other things that he or she could possibly be doing. Many children with an obvious gift in a single area are much less able in other areas and I can't help thinking that they would benefit more from being encouraged to broaden rather than deepen their skill set.

In part that's because I had a "thing" about not knowing too much, because it felt like that would collapses possibilities and constrain DD to a more deterministic future: a child can do anything, whereas a bright child is expected to do bright child things etc.

That is an interesting perspective. I taught dd for much the same reason, my thinking being: If dd has the education and qualifications she has more options open to her. Eg, If at 16 she says she wants to be a doctor, it is no use me replying I wish she had told me at 7 so I could make sure her education was better. However if she wants to be, say, a fashion designer, she could still choose that option.

I think the problems come with the parents who decide their 5 year old will be a doctor one day.

little Johnny is such a maths genius that the school just can't meet his needs

A school should be able to provide an education, no matter what the level of the child. The alternative is the school asking the parents to stop teaching because the school is not as good at getting a child to their potential as the parents. Also, if maths is something the child enjoys doing, why should they not do it at home? Children get who get ahead in music even have specialist music schools, yet for some reason in maths, children are expected to move along at roughly the same speed.

The level of maths expected at school via the national curriculum is so much lower than what is obtainable by the average child. This is probably why there are discrepencies noted in this subject-just a basic amount of parental input and it can look (incorrectly) like a child is a genius in this subject.

It's interesting as a debate, schools have to cater for all levels, and in DS' year 3 class there are children at level 1b all the way to 4a in maths, and I am sure that it's the same in most state schools. Teachers have to work with the whole class, making sure the more able are challenged as well.

I couldn't understand the concept of 'gifted' I thought that more able children were tutored but DS1 has always been good with maths concepts from a young age, he makes up maths games, practices lots at home, on his own and we also provide some support but no tutoring, he is at level 4a. I think he is 'gifted' because it's a natural ability, and even if we don't push him it will still stay his strong point.

Most schools try to usher the most able children up levels, yet our school is achieving very low overall grades because they are poor at pushing the 'middle' achievers up.

One of my children taught themselves to read. I'd done the same. It is of course dependent on there being print about and "reading to" in some form to get the association going. So Tesco was the first word!

I had another who took a long while to get the connections. I helped that one learn to read!

So by "taught themselves", people mean: Picked it up from being read to? And some children need more parental input than others.

I mean by it that there was no sounding out or any real explanation on our part. We hadn't even got to the point of moving a finger under text or pointing at the shop signs and saying "that says .."

So really I was just pointing out that we fitted into neither of the allotted categories as I wouldn't consider that I'd got to the stage of thinking about helping him to read. I was also a bit in denial tbh but by 3 the nursery staff insisted he was really reading and not just remembering stories.

DD taught herself to read at a basic level (a cat sat on a mat but with other random words like rabbit, carrot, funny, silly etc) at 2.

I don't know how she did it as she was reading phonetically (ie sounding the words out) I then taught her the rest.

DS (9) is in yr5 & is having tuition for 11+ but his tuition mainly covers actually doing the test IE time management etc rather than pushing him too much ability wise.