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.

Apologies seeker. I appeared to have incorrectly filled in the blanks.

I was talking about about black youths and crime and gangs. I then talked about living in SE London and how the schools were crap and how GS were a means of saving some of these poor black kids.

These points were made over a number of posts and it was therefore not obvious what my theme was. I now accept that you was responding to my point about 'poor' kids as opposed to 'poor black kids'.

But my question, albeit an ammended one still stands. Why do you think poor kids, white or otherwise, don't stand the remotest chance of getting into a GS?

I am being unfair- I am pro comprehensives knowing I can 'pay' for a good one. The system is unfair and am making full use of it.At the same time I am saying it is unfair to pay for a tutor. It is hypocritical- but it did well by my DCs.

In my dc's grammar the kids are 90% from private school.

And what's interesting is the attitude of the parents. Entitled? dear lord.

And these parents are so rich, but they are getting something for nothing and they are just THRILLED. And they have spent a fortune on tutoring to shoehorn them in.

Just saying. This is the reality of a lot of grammars.

... I should add that I think that the odds are stacked against kids from a poor background but I wouldn't describe their chances as 'remote'. Eton or Harrow maybe but not the local GS.

The problem with comprehensives is that they treat everyone the same. I went to a secondary modern and they didn't. They had those who should have been in grammar school at the top and those who couldn't read at the bottom and they taught them accordingly.I wish that comprehensives would do the same.

But they do stream them exotic

I would call their chances remote- maybe not in the past but certainly today.

See above Poosh.

You have no idea.

They still expect them to take the same exams. They still expect the same academic hoops- there is no value on the practical. They have to do a foreign language when they can't manage English!

At my DD's grammar, she was one of 3 in a class of 27 to come from a private school.

The reality of one grammar is not the same as the reality of all grammars.

People don't have much money. They pay for primary and hope it is an investment for free secondary.

Hand - that's why I said "a lot" and not "all"

Exotic - I hear what you're saying, but the reality is, that is changing. The introduction of the btecs for the more practical is giving schools the opportunity to restructure the curriculum. Eg at the school my DS attends, those taking the btec take reduced number of GCSEs and have timetabled general extra help sessions (not sure what they're called)
Plus the school does not insist on students taking MFL to GCSE.

The more academic students take 11 GCSEs and perform very well.

I repeat: there is nothing at all unfair or dishonest about parents paying for private primary, or tutors, or an expensive house, in order to get a decent free education for their DCs. It is in the interest of all concerned that parents should encourage their DCs in every way possible to further their education.

What may be unfair, in some areas of the country, are limited educational choices.

Hully - I know a number of poor Indian, Vietnamese and Chinese parents whose children went on to go to Uni. and became professionals. I accept it doesn't help but kids don't fail academically BECAUSE they are poor.

@hullygully it may be the reality of your DC's grammar. It isn't the reality of my DD's grammar. Who is to say which is more representative?

No one, it's not either or. I'm saying there are a lot where that is the circ (that I know of, anyway, inc my dcs).

Bonsoir - The system IS unfair in that the odds are stacked in favour of people who have money. Not that this opinion stops me from using money to give my kids an advantage :)

Yes, I said the system may be unfair (I disagree that it is unfair purely on the grounds of ability to pay. Absolutely every single little thing about life is unfair on those grounds!).

At ds's primary school 17% of children are on FSM. A bit higher than the national average, but about there. The same % in the local high school. Sub 2% in the grammar school.

So unless you are going to tell me that disadvantaged children are somehow inherently less intelligent than more well off ones, there is something wrong with the system that made that happen.

Some of those FSM kids that are bright Seeker may be better off applying for a bursary at a suitable independent school. Their chances of getting in may be higher as the entrance exams are normally not published so can't be prepared for.

Yep. And parents who for whatever reason can't support their children through the 11+ are so going to be able to find an independent school that offers 100% bursaries and apply for one!

This is the first time I have heard the suggestion that the unfairness of the 11+ can be mitigated by sending disadvantaged children to independent schools!

seeker - Life is unfair and it can never be perfect. All one can do is to make it as unfair as possible.

As you have said upthread, parents that are committed to their children's education play a major factor in their child's performance. You still haven't answered my question as to why you think that poor people can't be commited to their children's education.

Unless you can figure out the root cause then banning selective education won't make those underperforming kids perform any better.

" You still haven't answered my question as to why you think that poor people can't be commited to their children's education."

Of course they can. But parental poverty is always one of the most consistent indicators of academic underperformance. There are so many factors. Parents can be too tired/depressed/demoralised to be as supportive as they would like. They can have no time, money, knowledge,confidence, space to help.

I remember the mother of a friend of my dd's asking me where she could buy past papers. I told her they had a special offer on in Waterstones. A few weeks later, I asked her if she had got them and she said that she hadn't, because she had gone to the shop, hadn't been able to find them, and had been too intimidated to ask. She had never been in a bookshop before.

seeker, so did you buy the past papers for her then?