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.

Exactly. But you seem quite happy to say that 77% of the children in Kent and Bucks should go to secondary moderns- and don't see that as being the slightest problem except for those of us with "chips on our shoulders about our own education!

The whole point is that Reading Grammars come from a huge area outside Reading and their comps are much better than the Reading ones.

I don't want my DCs at grammars if they are not suited. DS2 left school at 16 and got an apprenticeship, I am just as proud of his C in English as his brother's A because he really worked for it. He isn't academic. I don't see why he has to be cut off in a different school,most of his friends are academic. His girlfriend is at a RG university.
One thing is for sure, he deserved a good school and he wouldn't have got it in the city I moved from.

I certainly wouldn't want DS2 at a grammar and no amount of tutoring, if I was silly enough, would have got him there. It wasn't the school to suit him.

Just for the record I would like to say that I would have been perfectly happy in a comprehensive where there were grammar schools - I was not at a comprehensive.

I would pick a good secondary modern over a poor comprehensive. A comprehensives with a poor catchment area and a bad reputation will probably have no higher ability spread than a secondary modern in a moderately selective area and most likely have a much higher staff turnover.

But selective systems aren't fair and I don't support them but the alternatives have their problems too, so I'm not passionately against grammars, I just don't like them.

@seeker

What's with the 'we'?

I suggested that exotic had a chip because of what she said about being on the scrapheap at 11 and how others regarded her as a failure.

I know nothing significant about your personal history so I'm not chucking the 'chip on the shoulder' label your way. But a 'naively idealistic' label IS flying your way :o

I' not in favour of merging grammar schools with comprehensives. I am in favour of merging grammar schools with high schools to create comprehensive schools. Not sure how this will reduce comprehensive children's chances of getting intonthe top set

We, at least I was, discussing merging non-selective schools with selective schools. If you want to be pedantic about using the correct terms ie secondary moderns, high schools and comprehensives, then how about we just stick to the all encompassing term 'non-selective'?

Imagine you have a bunch of kids at your non-selective (NS) who are working hard to break into the top set and therefore boost their self esteem. In comes the GS kids. A new top set will probably be formed to accomodate them. Some of the NS top set kids will probably find a place in the new top set but the bulk will now form the 2nd set. The kids that were working hard to break into the top set are now in the 3rd set with a chance of breaking into the 2nd set. Depending on the intake, you may find that two new top sets are created.

What do you think that is going to do to the self esteem of the kids that have been essentially demoted?

DS was Grade 7 violin by the time he left Year 6. He wasn't part of the school music scene mainly because the music wasn't remotely challenging (lots of open string playing). It wasn't our intention but it meant that his Grade 2/3 classmates could shine at the school concerts and had a chance of winning the talent competition.

I am not making the point specifically about music. I am just making the point that your views are contradictory or naive (take your pick). You talk about the damage to a kids self esteem because they never win at sports. Yet you are in favour of creating a school syetem where some kids now have even less of a chance of getting into the top set or of getting selected for the inter school quiz team or ... or ....

Also, you and/or exotic talked about how you don't want a GS education for your DC because that doesn't suit them. At the same time you both seem to be in favour of denying other parents the right to choose an education that suits their academically able DCs. Doesn't that strike you as a bit contradictory?

He problem here is that you can't use non selective as a generic, because there is a big difference between a comprehensive and a, for want of a better term, secondary modern. Is this a difference you acknowledge? Because if you don't, we can't rally have a conversation because we're talking about different things!

Yes I acknowledge that there is a difference between comprehensives and secondary moderns and if it will move the conversation forward please substitute my references to NS or comprehensives with 'Secondary Modern'

My question still stands.

Seeker, what constitutes a top set to you?

If you think about it in thirds then out of 60 kids that could form the 2 top sets in a secondary school (10 from each of 6 primaries with 30 per class), 38 of these will go to GS and the remaining 22 will go to the 'Comp'. It's not quite a full class but it's not far off.

I don't thing the situation is as bad as you are making it out to be.

Of course you could view the above as the whole of the top set going to the Grammar school (and a few more) but likewise you could see it as roughly one of two top sets (based on the top 1/3 per feeder school) going to each.

Well, our high school expects around 15-20 high ability children a year in an intake of 170.

What I don't understand about the supporters of selective education is why they are so determined that it's not good for clever children to mix with less clever ones.

Obviously the numbers will vary from school to school with those schools state schools that are near grammars with a high intake of prep school pupils fairing best i suppose.

It is fine for clever children to mix with less clever ones if the school concerned doesn't perceive average as 'good' (this can lead to the dumbing down of some DC as per my post above wrt my own DD).

So if it's fine for clever children to mix with less clever ones, why are people clinging like grim death to grammar schools?

Because mixing with and being taught with are different things.

But they won't be taught with them. That's why comprehensive schools set their pupils- often from day 1.

Well, our high school expects around 15-20 high ability children a year in an intake of 170

Only 15-20 out of 170?

The way you talk I got the impression that you had an army of high ability children that were disadvantaged because so many of them didn't have access to a GS education.

Meta - Because mixing with and being taught with are different things.

I totally agree.

Seeker - You said elsewhere how it was unfair that a disproportionate amount of resources is spent on GSs considering the small proportion of the school population that they make up. Now you are asking why GS parents are clinging like grim death to GS. I suspect that it is because most high school HMs/governors think like you. I can imagine such a meeting.

Why should the school subsidise the GSCS Physics class to visit the CERN lab eh? I mean, wouldn't the money be better spent on those struggling to pass the fouindation paper rather than a handful of kids :)

Your anti competition, winning is bad/unfair etc views on selective education is exactly why parents like myself are clinging to selective education.

Well, you did ask.

@seeker I have a child at a comp. You do not. I attended a comp. You did not. I know how comps operate and many subjects are not set and even where they are, e.g. maths, the top set of a local catchment area intake comp will not be comparable to a super selective grammar school. that is the sort of selection I want to keep, and indeed extend - not the generalistic 25% we see in Kent.

"Your anti competition, winning is bad/unfair etc views on selective education is exactly why parents like myself are clinging to selective education."

How bizarre! This is so far from what I think that I really can't see how I've given you that impression.

In a comprehensive school the kids currently in grammar schools would carry on having a similar education in the top sets. The difference is that everyone else in the school would have the chance to be an academic winner too.I can'r see why anyone could object to that- unless secretly it is that the parents of grammar school minority don't like the idea of them mixing with the minority.

@poosh mind you I wouldn't be overjoyed about my DD's school organising a trip to CERN. The trip to Dunkirk which she will be doing in the autumn will be overpriced enough.

But @seeker, unlike you, I can see what the education is like now in the top sets of my local comp (for the subjects that are setted). It's a good school which gets great results but the Y7 work being done by DS doesn't compare to that done by DD1 in Y7 not least because at her school, by the end of Y7 they were halfway through the Y8 syllabus since they complete KS3 at the end of Y8. If DD1 was at the comp too, she would be working at a much much slower pace. Since she isn't exactly overburdened with hard work as it is, I cannot see how that could be anything but bad for her. There are things the comp undeniably does better than DD1's school. But in the main they aren't things that are relevant to her. And the couple of things that are 'better' at the comp would be outweighed by the several things that are very not better, especially since I cannot compensate for the 'not better' things and I can to a certain extent compensate for the 'better' things.

@meta -Luckily DCs aren't in any of the sport teams but friend's DS is. Athletics team went to Spain for 'training'. Cricket team are touring Australia & NZ in the winter. Ouch!

Metabilis, you know how your comprehensive worked and you know how your DCs comprehensive worked - they don't all work the same!
Nearly all subjects were set at my DCs comprehensive and the top maths set was certainly comparable to the top set in the grammar- there was no grammar for them to go to. Since one of DSs friends went to Cambridge to do Maths and one to Warwick to do Maths and DS1 got A at A'level in the subject they can't have really done better! They were not out of the ordinary. DS went to a RG university to do a science subject. They were perfectly normal results for the school.
I don't at all follow that if the schools were to merge the top sets would be upset to be 'demoted' common sense says they would be. There is no shame in it.
DS2 wasn't academic, he wasn't at all suited to a grammar but I can't see why he can't go to the same school as his brother. His best friends have always been the academic types- as is his girlfriend. He is perfectly intelligent, articulate, very sporty and gets on with everyone. He was in different sets- it is perfectly possible for DCs in different ability sets to be friends! I can't see why they need different schools when you can cater for all within one building.

It obviously makes a huge difference if some DCs are in a grammar and some in a comprehensive- it would seem that mine were much better off because there was no grammar to cream them off.

Well, that's the difference between a posh school and a state school, isn't it. Although having said that many of the city comps (I have friends with kids at all of them) lay on fantastically pricey ski trips every year. As does DD1's GS. Luckily, none of my kids will ever want to go skiing cos of the dyspraxia issues . But honestly - £1K for a skiing trip? :(