Tutoring. Yes or no?

[SkinnyVanillaLatte]

Now we've come round to report time,it's got me thinking all about tutoring.

I'd like to know others opinions.

Do children who are tutored do significantly better? At what age should they start? How expensive is it? How many hours should they do a week? What subjects?

Or is it a waste of money and detrimental to a well rounded childhood?

I'm not sure what I think but I'm really interested to hear others views and experiences!

I just wondered if these kids have a better outcome from their schooling because of one to one attention,or not.

I'm sure it will vary in every case - depending on the child, the tutor, the parents and what else they might be doing instead of being tutored. If you've a child who isn't doing well and you've more money than time, then you might do well to engage a tutor. If you've an able child and you've got time to do the one-on-one yourself they may end up going in more interesting directions.

Thanks adrian and Grimma!

It's very expensive,isn't it

I think you've really hit the point adrian.It's all to do with the undivided attention of an adult for an hour really isn't it? Rather than the general throng of a class of 30!

If you can afford it,adrian,it does sound of value to me.

But I think a more hands on (and possibly structured) approach myself is more within my price bracket

My DS has been tutored since year 4 and it has been the best thing we could have done for him. He is extremely able, amongst the top few in his year and because of his strength in maths and science and his excellent reading skills he had not been given the attention we felt he needed in many of his core handwriting, spelling and creative writing skills. He had decided that he simply wasnt creative and that he couldn't do it. He was reaching national standards but not reaching his potential.

The tutor has worked with him for one hour a week, plus homework and the difference is remarkable. She has got to know him very well and understands what makes him tick. He has gone up 4 sub levels in writing since November and he is starting to enjoy the work. From next year we will add some comprehension work into the mix and will continue with the lessons until he starts secondary school. She only does literacy with him but occasionally he has asked her to explain something he is struggling with in maths which she is more than happy to do.

We pay £30 a week and I feel it is excellent value. I would also second that if you are considering tutoring it is vital to find someone that you and your child gel with and it takes time for them to get to know one another but when they do the difference is remarkable.

Tutoring is fantastic (I would say that, being a tutor ;)) but genuinely, a tutor will get to know your child's strengths and weaknesses in a way the teacher cannot. they will develop an individually tailored programme of tuition for them How can that not be effective?

I gave up teaching because I became frustrated at not being able to achieve what I wanted to achieve with the restrictions of the state school classroom. I can achieve amazing results with tutoring. My children enjoy tutoring because I am gentle and encouraging and I can build a personalised programme around their interests.

I do not employ a tutor but have always spent some time each week teaching dd. This is becuase teaching a child increases their potential.

I looked at Adrian Beckett's blog with interest (he posted up thread) and this comment caught my eye about the 11 plus. Is it true that children will not touch on these maths topics at primary school and so be disadvantaged at 11 plus (if not using a tutor or similar?):

Well, there are lots of topics children will never have touched: algebra, reverse fractions, volume, staircase perimeter and more.

This is why a bright kid needs a tutor. Everyone else has one ? you either tutor your son/daughter which we highly recommend if you have the time and energy or you get a tutor.

Is it really true that everyone prepares too, in one way or another?

Why are so many heads saying now that we shouldn't do more than mild paper familiarisation and they don't want children who have been 'over tutored'? Thinking of St Paul's girls rather than grammars but it's been said by grammar heads too.

And another question for Adrian, having looked at that piece, does a child really have to be a 4a or above at the beginning of y5? Mine's a 3a at the end of y3 so unless he makes 3 sub levels progress (i.e. more than expected), he's out of it then...

I think the comment was about some children being very able naturally - those that could calculate shopping bills in their heads etc? Those 4a the start of Y5 wouldn't need much of his help being the point?

He also mentioned that some he tutored were 'very clever' and routinely got 90% in the relevant tests etc and parents might have a 'clever' child but it was important to remember some may be naturally cleverer as you considered the 11 plus for your child. That very 'clever' superior child might have been tutored since Y2 etc, that's the thing, performance can be improved?...Just my thoughts.

We had a tutor, very very reluctantly when my son's YR 5 end of year report stated that he was below expectations for the year group - we had had 3 parents' evenings throughout the year and at NO POINT was this flagged up as a weakness - and previous years' reports had not shown any failings. He had a one to one Maths tutor at home from October half term to the week before SATS and it paid for itself in a good result. We are convinced he would not have achieved this level without consolidated one to one input which had clearly not happened in school from Rec to Year 5. We took issue with the school that it should NOT get to year 5 for such revelations to be made clear. We were very unhappy in having to pay for something we think should have been given to him and other children in the same position, however luckily we could afford it and we are glad we took this step to give him the confidence he needs for high school.

Mine will be in years 4 & 2 next year. I couldn't imagine them having a tutor for no reason.

Having said that we talked about the idea of a tutor for dd1 for maths. I wanted someone to make it fun for her, because although she has no problems (finishing year 3 on 3b) she lacks confidence with it and is scared of it! I can't do any maths with her as she gets hysterical with me. One of her older brothers was the same. However, I didn't want her to feel under more pressure with maths and wanted her to enjoy her extra curricular activities, so we dropped the idea.

Hamish Bear, I read that blog completely differently to you.
If they have a 4A or above at the beginning of Year 5, are considered Gifted and Talented and can work out the total of your shopping quicker than you then they?ve got a good a chance as any.
I read that as only tutor your kids if they are as above as otherwise it's not even worth them trying for a grammar/selective/whatever. But then of course you've no idea if this mythical child who has a 4a at the beginning of y5 has already been tutored and therefore may be already fulfilling their potential.
I hate the idea of tutoring a child that's doing well (like mine) but at the same time I can't help getting sucked into the competition that is endemic in my part of London. My neighbours already think I'm a child abuser for sending them to the local state...

Sorry me again. I think, especially where I live (Central London i.e. very consumerist/capitalist centre) there's this idea that if you pay for something it has to be better than something you supply yourself. Therefore you can subcontract out every part of parenting (potty training, first foods, riding a bicycle). It's very disempowering because it's persuading parents that they are no longer good enough and that there is an 'expert' who is better than you and that if you really loved your child wouldn't you want to give them the 'best'.

DS (8, finishing Y3) will get a tutor for Y5, as we are in an 11plus area and if you don't tutor, you don't pass, unless you do the do the tuition at home yourself which doesn't work for us. Everyone I know round here (state school, Kent ) whose child stands a chance at 11plus will be doing the same.

I'm going to get him used to Bond books in Y4 at home so Y5 tutoring isn't too much of a shock.

I guess it's hard to say for sure whether 4A is the level they need at the beginning of Year 5 but I have 4 students out of 7 with a 5C or 5B at the end of Year of 5. These are the students who I am confident will do well in the 11+.

'over tutored'. My experience is that independent school exams and some grammar schools (e.g St Olaves) are a much better indicator of a child's ability as there is a lot of problem solving. My instinct is that the 11+ (grammar school) is easier to tutor for. Not word problems but challenging problems which require persistence, patience and maths skills: drawing the problem, a table, trying a smaller number etc...

Hey Hamish bear - sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm still learning about how to write blogs. I do think children at 4a need a tutor because most other children have one (even the very naturally bright children). I wanted to stress that your child needs to be very bright to stand a fair chance. This is what the mum of one of my students found out at an open day : There were 400 more children who wrote test last year to 2010 - so guesstimate - 5200 who will sit the tests in 2012 for only 754 places

Where do you live?
In london you need to get them tutored for 7+ and in bucks for 11+

Thanks for the clarification, Adrian.

I live in Asia & have changed my opinion about many 'naturally clever' children over time. Those hours of purposeful practice seem to make an enormous difference to a child's intellect over time. I've seen cognitive ability develop dramatically. Ideas explored by Gladwell etc. Not something that's widely believed in the UK it seems. I digress. Where I am you have 'enrichment' which goes on most days & takes what you did in school much further. Tutoring for more than a short time is frowned on in the UK it seems. Many think too much is counter productive & damaging but I'd argue it all depends on how it's delivered. Certainly I'd have benefitted from it as a child.

It also seems to me that there's this growing acceptance you now have to tutor - so many people chasing so few places as you say. In which case in grammar school areas children should surely be prepared in primary school etc? Why are Primary head teachers not saying clearly 'yes, you need to prepare your child' if they don't are they not failing many children?

Is it true that the Maths topics mentioned up thread are not covered at Primary at all yet children routinely face them at 11 plus?

I have 2 out of 4 of my dc's tutored for specific reasons.They all currently go to good state schools though my eldest is being moved to a private school.My eldest is tutored for maths [in the top set] as the teacher does not have the time to fully explain things during the lesson.She has been placed in the bottom set in the private school as the standard appears to be much higher [and we were unable to practice a similar test beforehand].My second because he appeared to have some form of dyscalculia.He is now at an average level in his asessments.My other 2 are very able and do not need tutoring at the moment but may in the future for private school entry.
We also lived in Asia and witnessed the culture of continuous tuition from about 3 years old.Asian children do very well academically but at considerable cost to the development of a more rounded individual.However ther is something to be said for continual extra work unlocking your potential.

Thanks Hamish bear.

I was interested to read your message.

This is one such question in the 11+ and as far I am aware it is not covered at schools:

3x + 8 = 20 - 3x. What is x?

I suppose you could answer this intuitively. In the 11+ you are given some answers to choose from. This is where I think tuition is necessary - just to get accustomed to this sort of question. Could you tell me the title of a Gladwell book you've read?

Hamish there is an idea here in the UK that children need to find their natural level.

I must admit I find it peculiar.

First, I remain uncoonvinced that any of us have a natural level. What we achieve is almost always correlated to the effort we put in, to some degree.

Second, even if there is a natural level, I don't see why any of us shouldn't push beyond it.

Culturally, this makes me an outlier, I know .

Skinny,

Only you know whether your child would benefit from some gentle tutoring - why is it any different from having an hours piano lesson or dance lesson a week? It doesn't automatically mean that you've turned into a hot house mother who is beating her children with a sharp stick every night. Neither does it mean that your children have suddenly lost their childhood and can't go out tree climbing and bike riding anymore

However, I wonder whether what would be better at this stage (if you feel able) is to possibly just do a little extra reinforcement yourself. I wish we had done that with our DS, but we pretty much left it to his very average primary school as he has always been "fine". We started doing some maths and English with him ourselves this year in preparation for 11 plus and we've been amazed at how much difference it's made to his confidence. We may well have left it too late as he isn't a high level 5 in everything (as seems to be required ) but if I'd known how much difference an hour extra a week with mum or dad would make, I probably would have started a very long time ago!

I would also recommend keeping up the reading with your children and talking about vocabulary and characters and plots etc as this will all make a massive difference to their literary skills in the long run.

Why are Primary head teachers not saying clearly 'yes, you need to prepare your child'

The issue is that if the primary schools say "You need to prepare your child for the 11+" then they are basically saying " the state primary system does not prepare bright children for the state secondary system", which is pretty difficult for them to swallow, politically.

I think with tutoring you need to have an idea of what you are hoping to achieve. For a profoundly dyslexic child tutoring at an EARLY age can make a massive difference. Ie. an hours one to one support for a reception child who is really struggling with reading can make a massive difference later on. It can take a long time for a school to recongise that a child has SEN and provide the help a child needs.

I sent my son to a tutor in year 2 because I had the pregnancy from hell. I was not well enough to hear him read or make sure he did his homework. Instead we paid £22 to make sure he did his homework and practiced reading. We stopped the tutoring when dd was six weeks old.

I think that tutoring can make a massive difference to a child's confidence and I plan to send my son to a tutor again in year 6. My son does attend a good state school, but its about specialist attention to fill in any holes in learning.

I wasn't at all keen on the idea of tutoring generally, but as the dds get older can see some really good reasons for looking into it - in our case, for dd1 who is under confident in maths. She is around 3b/a at the end of Y3, which is fine, but has panics and bursts into tears over maths homework - and had a very disrupted time in YR and Y1 with unavoidable teacher changes (babies, illness...).

We think a bit of tutoring will help her confidence, consolidate basic concepts etc. She's met a tutor, enjoyed her hour, and is going to have a few sessions...we'll take it from there. I can well believe a bit of individual attention can improve things where there are 'gaps' or struggles - but wouldn't have her tutored for any other reason, or if she hated doing it!

My main problem is that her little sister is now asking why she can't have tutoring