Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
seeker · 23/05/2012 19:59

The point is that if grammar schools and high schools were merge into proper comprhensive schools, the kids at the grammar school would still be there. And would probably still form most of the top set.

They just wouldn't have pulled the ladder up after them.

Why do people think bright children are so incredibly fragile that even being in the same building as less high achieving children is going to drag them down?

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 20:22

A picture is emerging. The reason why you are so in favour of banning GS is not because of a desire for social equality but because you think comps are so crap.

Why else would you not be proud of your DC if he/she was in the top set at the comp. Not all comps are crap.

If I were to extend your reasoning, a parent shouldn't be proud of her DCs achievement at her GS because the school's ranking isn't as high as the GS on the other side of town. So DC is only top of an inferior cadre.

Isn't being the best among your peer group good enough? Why does one have to be the best of the best of the best in order for it to be something to be proud of?

[Have I just been defending comps? Methinks I need a drink]

OP posts:
Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 20:34

Talking about self condidence, as you have said, if GS and comps were to merge then no doubt the GS kids would form the top set. at least for the first year.

What do you think will happen to the self confidence of all those former top set comp kids? How do you think they will feel when the maths challenge team gets made up from the former GS kids for example. Or when all the prep boys get to form the cricket team or tennis team.

Be careful what you wish for. You may not like what you get in your Brave New World.

OP posts:
Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 20:42

seeker - you are asking why people think that being in the same building as comp kids will drag down the GS kids.

Well, why do you think that being in the same building will drag up comp kids?

OP posts:
seeker · 23/05/2012 21:05

"seeker - you are asking why people think that being in the same building as comp kids will drag down the GS kids.

Well, why do you think that being in the same building will drag up comp kids?"
I don't. I think having the same opportunities might.

TheFallenMadonna · 23/05/2012 21:24

I'm not sure you could guarantee that the clever ones will take all the first team places Hmm

Metabilis3 · 23/05/2012 21:29

@seeker they do have the same opportunities. They have better opportunities in some ways - their schools are funded better, they are generally closer to home so have a shorter school day. They are taught the same curriculum. The one difference is they get to work at their own pace but they don't get to dictate the pace of kids who could and should be working faster than them. I think that's fair enough.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 21:40

What magical opportunities do you see emerging from such an exercise?

As you know my DCs are at indies. The schools obviously have the money to provide superb sports and science facilities. Then there are the range of extra curricula activities. So if you were to say that my son has more opportunities than a comp boy then I would say fair comment.

But you aren't saying that so what are you saying? As another poster has said, GSs aren't necessarily better funded than comps. And I'm sure that you aren't suggesting that the MNetters that are comp teachers are less competent than their GS counterparts :)

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 23/05/2012 21:51

As I said right back down the thread, when someone can convince me that children comprise two discrete groups in terms of all round academic ability, then I will support selective education.

The secondary modern/grammar system is underpinned by the notion that children need to be educated with others of similar ability. But I teach children who are very able in my subject (Science) but have significant difficulties in English. They are in top sets for Science and Maths, but well down the lists in English. And I know there are students for whom the opposite applies. Now, they are not the majority, but they are there, and they do not fit the system. And that's before we get to the problems of resolving the borderline.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 21:52

"I'm not sure you could guarantee that the clever ones will take all the first team places"

My son is one of the few state school primary kids in his Indie year. He is quite sporty and at his primary school he was in most of the sport teams. However, the prep boys at his current secondary have been playing tennis, golf, cricket and rugby since Year 6 and sometimes since Year 5. Some of these boys are county class standard. DS is sporty but a lot of these kids are sporty AND they have had at least a years head start on him skills-wise and training wise.

Posters talk about how kids of pushy GS/Indies parents have an advantage when it comes to the 11+ and how its not a level playing field (pardon the pun) Why do you think that the advantage stops at the classroom?

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 23/05/2012 21:55

So perhaps the one of the opportunities offered by comprehensives is the opportunity that the selective system claims to offer - the opportunity to be in a class with those of similar ability - across all subjects. Given that every comprehensive I have taught in has streamed, or set, or both.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 21:57

Fallen - As another poster has said, it is impossible to have a one-size-fits-all education system. No matter which model you choose, someone will find it a bad fit.

So, just because the model does not 'fit' the kid that excels at science but sucks at English doesn't mean that selective education is bad.

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 23/05/2012 22:01

Hmm. It's not quite that simple. My DS (year 6) plays cricket (badly!) at a local club. The club boasts a lot of county players - all from local state primaries. It's an area thing.

Cricket was big in my last secondary too, because it was taken very seriously indeed by some groups. Again, not a type of school thing. And anyone arriving there from a prep school and expecting to make the team would indeed have needed to be of a very high standard.

TheFallenMadonna · 23/05/2012 22:10

I'm not sure anyone would reduce the argument to "comprehensive good, secondary modern/grammar bad".

I think a model that doesn't fit a sizeable number of students has some questions to answer though.

And your OP asks about how to allocate places. And I think this issue is of considerable importance when thinking about how the selction process should actually work. As is the borderline thing. One mark either way? Is there any assessment that would be valid discriminating to that level? And if there isn't, should be be doing something badly?

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 22:13

Of course you are proud of your DC being in the top set of the comprehensive school, but it is not a comprehensive school if the top are missing- and that means your DC could be top of the grammar school, they will just never know if those DCs are not there. When I finally got to the grammar school I assumed that I would be one of the less able and that it might be a struggle- it was fine, I had to work but it wasn't a struggle and I wasn't less able. Therefore had it even a comprehensive I could have got to a higher set much sooner.
Thefallenmadonna makes the very valid point that some DCs can be very good at one subject and very poor in another and again that is catered for in the comprehensive.
At my secondary modern I would have been thrilled to have the grammar school merge and go down a few sets because I would then have the competition and the opportunity to rise.

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 22:15

Sorry been- not even.

seeker · 23/05/2012 22:20

The point that many are spectacularly missing is that in most grammar school aras, it's not grammar or comprehensive. It's grammar or high school. A high school is a comprehensive without it's top set. The top set is in the school down the road, and no matter how hard you try, if you have been sorted into the high school at 10, you have no chance at all of joining that top set. In some areas, there is a grammar that takes the very top 5%. The school the other children go to is so near a comprehensive as makes no difference. But if the "top" 23% go to the grammar, the remaining school is not comprehensive by any measure.

Metabilis3 · 23/05/2012 22:28

The point that @seeker is spectacularly missing is that not everybody on this thread wants to emulate the Kent system.

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 22:31

I have just used the dictionary
Covering or including everything.
Said of education -providing teaching for children of all abilities between the ages of 11 and 18.
It is not not a comprehensive school if DCs in the top ability band are not there.

seeker · 23/05/2012 22:31

It's not just Kent. Most grammar school areas are the same. It's only a few places that have super selectives.

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 22:32

Kent has grammar schools and therefore they can not have comprehensive schools - or not in the same area.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 22:33

Yes I did ask about how to allocate places in my OP and, despite my intention not to, the thread seem to have morphed into yet another comp versus selective education thread.

I accept that the current method is unfair but I don't see anyone offering any better ideas.

As for it being unfair, the degree of unfair-ness is neglible IMO. After 6 months of home tutoring DS reached his plateau. I could have tutored him for another year and it wouldn't have made much difference to his score.

So, so what if some kids have been tutored for a number of years. The extra years will have a diminishing return after the first 6 months.

So what if a kid has had professional tuition. I downloaded some papers and got DCS to do them

Basically, yes the 11+ is unfair but the extent to which it is unfair has been overstated IMO.

OP posts:
exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 22:35

I don't think the unfairness is overstated by those of us who were thrown on the scrap heap at 11yrs old.(and don't tell me we weren't because that is what I felt at 11yrs).

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 22:38

One day you can say that you want to be a doctor and everyone says 'lovely' and the next they say 'can you still do that' as if you can only aspire to shop assistant! I just used to say I didn't know, it was a lot simpler than explaining that I still could and how.

Original poster
PooshTun · 23/05/2012 22:39

Seeker - Maybe you have answered the question up thread and I missed it but you still haven't answered my question. You talk about a child being disadvantaged because he is not in a GS but you don't say why. Is it because you perceive GS teachers as being superior or because they are better funded or ... or ....?

OP posts: