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!

Having marked plenty of SATs seeker, I beg to differ. One particular child wrote a story that literally made me cry it was so lovely. It was imaginative, thoughtful, really connected to the topic etc. He/she got a 3a because he/she didn't use enough connectives, adjectives, paragraphs blah blah blah. Another child who wrote a heap of shit that was so dull it was actually hard to finish got a 5a because he/she wrote on topic and also used bollocks like "subsequently" and "in the meantime." What I mean by "shite" is stuff that is full of the stuff that ticks the boxes but has zero creativity or imagination. The education system seems to be geared towards that - meeting criteria without ever thinking of the holistic talent that a child demonstrates. It produces good exam takers, definitely but I'm not sure how useful that is in the long run.

Hamish what you say about pushing boundaries etc sounds very nice but I'm not sure what it means in practical terms. Have you ever taught a child?

Very sad and very true, CailinDana.

Yes, Cailin, the elusive difference between "gifted" and "does well in exams"!

"Seeker, you have a DD at grammar in Kent. Was she tutored for the 11+?"

"No she wasn't. Apart from some speed practice at home. But neither was ds, who failed! So we prove nothing"

In the other active thread about 11+ tutoring another poster went on about how her DC wasn't tutored but that didn't stop the DC getting a place at a selective school. Conclusion? Tutoring isn't necessary.

Well, the parents of the tutored children that did get the GS places are probably glad that parents like yourself don't believe in tutoring.

To me, the whole thing is a bit like Usain Bolt saying that he doesn't need to train much so you don't need to train much either. That advice only works if you are as naturally fast as Bolt.

I home tutored my kids. They wouldn't have passed the entrance exam if I hadn't. Now that they are in they are thriving so the argument that if a child needs tutoring in order to pass then that child will struggle to keep up is a load of rubbish.

good idea

Yes, Dana - re: teaching - but not a class of 30. Appreciate it's difficult to push boundaries for individual children in large classroom settings.

Hopefully those writers whose grammar/structure etc lets them down come into their own later in life. The problem is the levels are seen as shorthand for ability & IQ by most when really they're about current attainment by tick box list criteria.

They are going I think? Only I think to be replaced by something similar? Good structure, grammar etc are important skills & needed in the workplace more than creative wit, verve & flair - what a shame that the current system punishes the talented writer though.

HandMadeTailThu 19-Jul-12 21:36:53

Yes, just interested, because someone upthread implied it was necessary.

It was me. It is necessary to either tutor or do the tutoring yourself ( ie speed practice/ past paper practice/whatever you want to call it ) if you want your child to sit the 11plus.

Any child that has had a normal state education in Kent will not have had any tuition or practice in 11plus at school. Schools are not allowed to provide it.

So any child that hasn't had any home help or tutoring will most likely sit frozen in front of an 11plus paper for 30 minutes unable to fathom what to do.

To imply that one can simply sit it with no prior knowledge of what papers are like is very misleading.

Haven't read other comments but I use computer programmes for additional tutoring and it has I proved my kids confidence as well as ability.

Children need constant revision. At school they might cover a topic once in a year. Then it is introduced at the next level they year after. So they forget how to do the topic. Regular revision keeps the topic fresh.

I paid for a tutor for a term and it was great for confidence but it was just too expensive. I tried an online maths programme and never looked back.

Ps, my kids get ignored in class as the focus is on the under achievers. They get given worksheets and find this very boring. Teacher doesn't spend much time at all with them and they are also expected to support the weaker children.

If the focus is on the underachievers the school is not following government guidelines. Schools are judged on the progress of all pupils, low, middle and high achievers, and will be called to account by OFSTED if each group does not make or exceed expected progress.

Oh this is interesting reading. Recently had an online 'debate' about the Y4 timetables testing and had comments from one person which I quote (note their child had just turned 6 years old in year 1):

"so many kids now need "extra help" as we have a generation of lazy parents who do naff all at home. They should know their 12 times tables by the end of year 2". I confess I don't understand why they felt their child required extra tutoring to ensure all timetables up to 12 were learned by year 2, other than bragging rights. This isn't a requirement on the National Curriculum, rather it should be taught and learned incrementally up to year 4, with full understanding and ability by year 4.

"Each class now has a teacher, an assistant and still the kids bugger around and hold others back because they need "emotional support" or some other fancy weird shit that basically means their parents haven't taught them the basics". They went on to say they do 'loads' extra with their child, including all sorts of extra tutoring daily to ensure full understanding as well as reading every night to push their child to remain top of the class.

If a child is bright and asking questions, great, help them out, show them how to investigate or work out the answer. Reading for enjoyment is also great, but I do disagree with a Year 1 child being tutored daily and the opinion that any parent that doesn't tutor is 'lazy'. If you want to push your child to 11+ exams, then the child needs to be on board with this and want to do it. In which case, help them, but tutoring for the sake of tutoring? Personally no. There is more to a person than attainment at school, and I like to believe that most parents support their children in lots of different way at home, tutoring being just one of them if required.

I know this is an old thread, but IME, some people do tutor their children and others do not.

I chose to educate dd as I wanted her to do well at school and have a wider choice of career. (I did most of the teaching myself, rather than paying for a tutor). I wanted her to go at the pace which met her potential to learn, rather than the nationally agreed curriculum of what children should learn, (Which is somewhat slower). With dd now in her GCSE year, I'm glad I did.

However, the parent exemplified in Happysummer's post is not typical. I do not look down on other parents for leaving education just to the school as it is everyone's choice how they think it best to bring up their children.