Another thread about tutoring

[PooshTun]

Elsewhere there is a rehash of the usual tutoring versus no tutoring arguments.

There are those who argue that schools should not select kids based on a 11+ since it favours kids that are tutored as opposed to kids who have natural ability. As the saying goes, don't bring me problems, bring me solutions ie how would you fix the selection process?

Please, if you want to simply ban selective schools then start your own thread. I am interested in ideas from parents who are in favour of grammar schools but think that there should be a better way of allocating places.

I agree that the existing process is unfair but in the absence of a machine that measures true intellence or a test that you can't possibly be tutored for I don't see what can be done to make the whole selection process fairer.

I don't like selective schools because I don't think they can be fair. You've hit the nail on the head saying there is an absence of a machine that measures true intellence or a test that you can't possibly be tutored for and additionally of course there are early and late developers.

How can it be possible to mitigate those factors? I'll watch this thread in case anyone has any sensible solutions, but frankly I doubt it.

I would ask what is true intelligence? It could well be teaching a child increases their intelligence and hence their potential increases with tutoring. IQ may depend on nurture as well as nature and hence a test of true intelligence would be meaningless.

Personally I would favour a test that it was impossible to tutor for, I suppose that to a large extent measures innate ability or intelligence. While saying that quite a few girls at DD's school were heavily tutored and are still highly motivated and with supportive parents so they will probably do as well if not better than DD, who has natural ability but has never had to work very hard.

It's an interesting question

If you are going to design a new system then you need to factor in those students who are late developers and might do poorly at 11, but be brilliant at 13.

And what about the students who have a natural high ability in maths snd science, but are disinterested and perform poorly in English papers?

Or students who move the to the uk and need to learn English and so may not be able to show their true abilities until they are older and have a better grasp of English.

And how do you deal with students at the grammar school who are unable to keep up, precisely because they have been tutored to an exam rather than because they are naturally high ability?

I will watch this thread with interest!

May I ask a supplementary question? How would you make sure that you were discriminating accurately at the cut off point, given that it unlikely any valid assessment would neatly divide children into two discrete populations?

There isn't a fair way of selecting.

And it's not just about tutoring- I think we focus too much on that. I think that any sort of selection, whatever it's based on, is going to favour the children of engaged, aware, educated parents who understand how the system works and have to convfidence to use it.

I know I'm always saying this, but just in case anybody hasn't heard it before, if you had two schools side by side, one ow which admitted purely on proximity, and the other required parents to learn to juggle their child to b admitted, the juggling school would get better results. Same catchment, same everything- but the juggling requirement selects the families whose children already have an advantage, and, crucially, selects out those that don't.

Easy:

• enter based on teacher recommendations/cumulative scores from primary school - as they do in Germany

• ensure all pupils at state schools get at least 1 year of intensive exam coaching so as to level the playing field as they do in N Ireland

• vary the tests so that it changes from year to year so tutors can't prep - hard to do in practice

• use 'untutorable' tests - Durham has one that claims to be untutorable for

• have a range of tests so different schols are looking for different strengths - as we have now in practice in non-grammar aras, few remaining selectives administer their own tests, all subtly different

• limit tests to maths and English ie subjects all pupils learn in school anyway - some schools do this now

• introduce 13+ as well as 11= to give late developers or those who missed out accidentally the first time round a second bit at the cherry.

etc etc

Thre ar many ways to make the system fairer - it is only lack of political will that stops people examining them or discussing them.

If you think 11+ favours tutored kids then you will hate 13+ even more.

As most will know, 13+ entry is available at most Indies. We looked into it and decided it wouldn't be workable for us.

11+ is English, Verbal Reasoning, non VR. 13+ covers lots more. We can tutor for 11+ but 13+ expects knowledge of specific subjects and that would be beyond the tutoring capabilities of most parents. The prep school boys on the other hand ...

limit tests to English and maths

This is open to even more abuse than the existing 11+. I mean, my DCs had been doing Kumon maths and English since the age of 5 so in year 6 they were two years ahead of their state primary classmates.

Any test that exams a child on knowledge will heavily favour the tutored child. At least the current 11+ makes an attempt to negate this advantage. Yes, the child that has been taught the exam technigue will have an advantage but at least it makes an attempt to test your reasoning skills as opposed to how well you've been taught maths or English

ensure all state schools offer one year intensive exam prep

If non selective state schools could offer intensive tuition in the first place then I wouldn't be sending my kids to a selective school in the first place :)

It always seems to be accepted that grammar schools should be accepting only the brightest...but I sometimes question this. What use is raw intelligence in a pupil who is not motivated and hard working?

Would grammar schools be far better to select thos epupils who are bright enough, but willing to put in the hard graft?

enter based on teacher's recommendation

Going by various pass threads, some teachers have favourites. Various mums have complained that their schools tend to favour certain kids when it comes to selecting them to represent the school. Then there is the very bright kid whose 'quirky' personality annoys the teacher. No chance of him getting recommended.

And how do you compare recommendations from different teachers and different schools? I read posts from mums going on about their very bright DCs and how they were predicted Cs with Bs on a good day. To me 'very bright'
is when you are predicted A*. Obviously 'very bright' means different things to different people/teachers so how can the selective school decide what weight to give to such comments from different teachers?

word - IMO selective schools are interested in hard working and well motivated kids. Much has been made about heavily tutored kids but if I was an admissions officer I would favour that kid as opposed to the very bright kid who doesn't see the point of studying hard.

Or just have proper comprehensive schools which take all abilities and set appropriately?

Slightly off topic but I was asked to give an job applicant a technical test. His attitude was that he didn't know the answers of the top of his head but in real life he would Google so the test proves nothing.

Valid point but nevertheless I recommended the candidate who didn't have as impressive a cv but did demonstrate the motivation to spend days prepping for the interview.

There is no fair way of selecting at 10. The very fact that is a process biases it in favour of kids with involved, aware parents who understand the system

Comps are great .... in theory. I was the last to sit 11+ before the Labour Government did away with it in the 70s. The fact that education standards have been falling ever since should be p roof that going backwards isn't the answer.

It's a bit like saying USSR failed because communism doesn't work. Now we have corrupt capitalist in charge the solution is not communism.

poosh that's kinda what I've always thought.

If I were to select a bunch of kids, I'd go for bright enough, with huge motivation. Clever but lazy? Thanks but no thanks.

DD attends a selective independent school that is no hwere near as academically selective as the nearest comp, but the results are better. The HT is just very choosy about who gets a place in other ways (girls have to be highly motivated, take an active part in extra curricular stuff, engaged parents etc).

nearest grammar - apologies.

So if you haven't got engaged parents then tough?

pooshtun did you say your children have been getting extra maths tuition since they were 5?

Why? Genuine question btw.

wordfactory - agree to some degree - genius is 99% perspiration v 1% inspiration stuff - do agree that brains on their own aren't enough.

PooshTun - you seem to have entirely misundertood many of the points I made. By 13+ I just meant an exam at 13 (or could be 12+ at 12 or !$+ at 14, doesn't mattr) - not the exam currently named 13+ which relates to indies - obviously irrelevant. Re teachers' favourites, I said teacher recommendations AND grades - in Germany bright candidats can and do successfully appeal unfair decisions based on teacher bias. Re maths and English - all candidates learn them at school and bright pupils do not need Kumon!!

seeker - great example to prove my last sentence.

just - About 6 months into Year R it became obvious that DS wasn't going to be stimulated academically. The emphasis was on play. I don't have any problems with that but reading and maths hardly featured at all in the lesson plan. We discussed this with a mom who had a DD in Indie year R and the DD was streets ahead of my DS We knew that if we did nothing DS would fall further behind. DP and I were both working so tutoring DS ourselves wasn't an option and neither was going private at that stage. Hence the extra tuition.

Pooshtun - thanks for the reply.

I'm sorry you felt let down by your sons primary school, I guess he is now at a school which you are happier with.