Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

Another thread about tutoring

547 replies

PooshTun · 19/05/2012 17:02

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.

OP posts:
Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 12:20

seeker - I want schools to give kids the opportunity to try different sports. It doesn't mean that I want them to give the kids the best racket money can buy.

OP posts:
Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 12:24

... its a bit like legal aid. Poor people have a right to competent legal representation. You seem to think that they should have the right to a £1000 an hour suit from a top London firm.

I wonder how many more analogies I can squeeze into this thread? :)

OP posts:
pickledsiblings · 23/05/2012 12:26

'The problem here is that some/most/all (delete as you see fit) teachers have the same attitudes as the 'selective schools are bad' posters.'

Unfortunately I agree with this.

Strong pastoral systems can keeps bright kids on track but all too often, in huge Comps, the majority of such resources are used to chase up the worst offenders.

seeker · 23/05/2012 12:35

Nobody will ever address the question "What happens to the 77% who don't get into the grammar school?" I do really, really hope it's not because they don't care.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 12:37

As I mentioned upthread, DS's Year 6 teacher's attitude was - Great. You are KS Level 5 which means I can leave you alone and focus on those who are struggling to reach Level 4.

This is why I am against comps. Yes the the bright kids will go into the top set at the comp but they won't have the full resources of the school behind them.

But its not fair that the state should provide a better class of education to a minority I hear seeker say. The state has an obligation to provide you with an education that is appropriate to your abilities. Once again, its a subtle difference.

OP posts:
Metabilis3 · 23/05/2012 12:39

@seeker One of the reasons 'nobody' will address it is because the world is not just Kent. You refuse to accept or acknowledge that Kent does things differently from everywhere else. Where I live, a lot more than 7% of kids go to posh schools, fewer than 5% go to the Grammar and everyone else goes to the comps. And it works just fine.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 12:41

Nobody will ever address the question "What happens to the 77% who don't get into the grammar school?" I do really, really hope it's not because they don't care

What is so magical about getting into GS? Its like the Holy Grail to you.

A lot of the parents at my state primary school didn't go to a GS. Now their DCs are going to the same secondary school they did. I don't think that they spend their Sundays in church asking why God has forsaken DC and not given him a place at a GS.

OP posts:
pickledsiblings · 23/05/2012 12:56

The 77% who don't get into the Grammar School are not the academic ones that would even benefit from it. For the few that get misplaced there is/was a system in NI called 'the review' that allowed those types of students to apply again for a place 2 years later (IIRC). Anything similar in Kent?

SoupDragon · 23/05/2012 12:58

As I mentioned upthread, DS's Year 6 teacher's attitude was - Great. You are KS Level 5 which means I can leave you alone and focus on those who are struggling to reach Level 4.

DS2 (Y6) is expected to get level 6. He had one lessons week of "extended" maths and then spent an amount of time each week helping Y4 or 5 with their maths. Being lazy, he loved this as it meant less work. What would he achieve when pushed? Not something we would discover if he went to the local comprehensive as he would coast along doing the bare minimum (I know my child!).

At some point, you need to realise that a one size fits all approach to education fails just as many pupils as having selective schools.

CecilyP · 23/05/2012 13:00

Metabilis3, I think it is because Kent still runs a selective system very much as it was 40 or 50 years ago. In other areas, such as yours, the grammar schools are simply an oddity within a broadly comprehensive system.

CecilyP · 23/05/2012 13:05

The 77% who don't get into the Grammar School are not the academic ones that would even benefit from it.

Are they not? So people accept that there is a perfect selective system. Well, obviously not parents who pay for all this extra tuition as noted in the OP.

For the few that get misplaced there is/was a system in NI called 'the review' that allowed those types of students to apply again for a place 2 years later (IIRC). Anything similar in Kent?

Does that mean that selective schools in NI run at below capacity for 2 years?

SoupDragon · 23/05/2012 13:06

"What happens to the 77% who don't get into the grammar school?"

Well, the top X% will get to shine at the top of their secondary school, the middle Y% will perform averagely and the Z% who would fail anywhere will fail.

The bottom Z% would be better served by a vocational education rather than learning geography.

SoupDragon · 23/05/2012 13:08

For the few that get misplaced there is/was a system in NI called 'the review' that allowed those types of students to apply again for a place 2 years later (IIRC). Anything similar in Kent?

The comprehensive I attended operated a system with similar effect in that it had half 11+ intake and half non 11+ and you could move between the two halves.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 13:14

seeker - Re your comment about how its unfair for spending to favour the 23%, the comp that my DS's went to has its own on site swimming pool and a properly equipped dance studio. Then there is the stand alone performing arts theatre.

I don't see any signs of under spending by the council.

OP posts:
Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 13:15

meant to say the comp my DS's friends went to

OP posts:
Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 13:28

With regards to the point about how some kids are late developers and that testing them at 11+ means they get 'misplaced'.

IMO I was misplaced. I failed the 11+ and went to my local comp. Round about 13 things clicked for me. Consequently I left school with a reasonable slate of O levels. If I had gone to GS would things had 'clicked' earlier. Probably. Would I have got better results? Probably.

My point is this: I still passed my exams and secured a place at a good university. If a supposedly late developer is misplaced at 11 and subsequently fails to achieve at his comp then one has to ask whether he wasn't at the right school in the first place.

OP posts:
pickledsiblings · 23/05/2012 13:31

CecilyP, I'm not sure exactly but there would only be one or two places available.

Metabilis3 · 23/05/2012 14:06

The GS my DD1 attends gets significantly less funding than the comp my DS attends. Or, it did - now it;s an academy that may change. Although the comp was also in the process of converting to an academy however because of a hoohah with another school in the city that may now be delayed.

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 19:11

It wasn't just a few who were misplaced.
If you failed the 11+ you were not at a comprehensive, it can't be comprehensive with the top missing.

SoupDragon · 23/05/2012 19:29

"it can't be comprehensive with the top missing."

So what? Personally I think this gives the children who did not pass the 11+ more chance to shine.

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 19:31

It doesn't give them any competition. I sat at the top of the top stream in the secondary modern school with very little effort.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 19:34

If a comp kid gets a good education then what does it matter that his top set isn't truely the top set for his catchment area?

Your posts, past and present, seem to suggest that if a kid doesn't end up in a GS then society has screwed him.

I'm not a fan of comps but even I wouldn't suggest such a thought

OP posts:
exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 19:36

It is very patronising to pat you on the head and say 'well you can shine now dear' - simply because all the competition has been removed.

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 19:39

I wouldn't mind if at the end of the year the top could move to the grammar school and take the place of those they had overtaken. The beauty of the comprehensive is that they can. Once they are at the grammar they never move down.

SoupDragon · 23/05/2012 19:51

"It doesn't give them any competition"

But you want to take the 11+ children out of an environment that challenges them with equal competition.

"It is very patronising to pat you on the head and say 'well you can shine now dear' - simply because all the competition has been removed."

You are the only one being patronising.

Does being at the top not boost confidence in a way that being shoved down into average doesn't?

Anyway, it is irrelevant for the vast majority of the country.