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.

Both myself AND dc is happier at the school he is at now. :)

Round about about Christmas of his Year & I asked him if he would have preferred to have gone to the local comp like his primary school mates. If he had, there would be no two hours worth of home work a night. No bi-weekly tests. His answer was a definite no!

It was such a relief to hear him say that. I mean, we know parents who push their kids hard in music and we know from our DS's conversation with their kids, that the kids don't really enjoy music and would rather be on the PC instread of studying or practicing. So it was a relief to hear that we were pushing DS in a direction in which he wanted to be pushed.

wordfactory - I understood your points perfectly. Its just that your points don't make sense, at least not to me.

I mean, you don't agree with the exam format used for 11+ because the verbal reasoning and non verbal reasoning tests favour tutored kids and because they don't really test intelligence. Instead you favour a test which examines you on how well you have been taught maths or English. No chance of parents getting tutors for that eh? And since when did remembering and following a formula for finding the area of a circle = 'intelligence'.

As for teachers recommendations AND grades, we are back to exams again. If exams are 'bad' why does it matter whether its one administered by the selctive school or the primary school or by an external body.

As for appealing against teacher bias, I guess there won't be many parents who thinks that their kids are brighter than what the teacher thinks eh?

As for bright pupils not needing Kumon, DS found his classwork so boring that if it wasn't for Kumon I would be one of those parents posting to MN about how their bright DCs just wasn't geting along at school because they weren't being challenged.

Some parents are drawn to selective schools because they don't think that non-selective education works. Your 'solution' to these parents is to get the non-selective schools to work harder to get their kids to pass the tests so that they can pass the test for the selective school.

If the non-selctive schools were capable of this then me and other such parents wouldn't be jumping ship in the first place. There is a well known-ish Latin phrase to describe this kind of thinking. If I ever remember it I think I'll have a T-Shirt made up with it.

poosh to be honest, it's not that I agree or disagree with the current selection process. It seems to work okay.

A system where the proportion of FSM children in state selective schools is a minute fraction of those in non selective schools cannot by any measure be said to be "working OK"

"it's not that I agree or disagree with the current selection process. It seems to work okay"

Sounds like that you agree with me then because that is my point.

But it doesn't work OK!

it's not perfect but it works better than it would if you closed down those schools altogether so that no-one could get that quality of education.

A poor education for all is not the kind of equality that benefits anyone.

A system where the proportion of FSM children in state selective schools is a minute fraction of those in non selective schools cannot by any measure be said to be "working OK"

Which brings us back full circle. What would you do to make it work OK bearing in mind that the comprehensive experiment started the year after I started primary and discussions about declining standards have been popular ever since.

I meant to say that the comprehensive experiment started the year after I started secondary school all those many decades ago

I figure it's not perfect by any means. But then exams are always a blunt instrument be they entrance exams, GCSEs or finals at degree level.

seeker you are against the system full stop. Which is fair enough, but the OP was specifically asking not to get into that and instead wanted to discuss ways of improving the entrance structures. Wjat I'm saying is that as flawed as it is it seems to work okay as a means of entering this partcular system.

Moving slightly off topic, I have read posts, not necessarily in this thread, from parents or grown up 'children' who said that they or their parents deliberately chose a comprehensive education and now look at them, Oxbridge graduates despite their state education.

My City employer will only take graduates from Oxbridge graduates. The fast track civil service graduate stream is heavily stacked with Oxbridge graduates. Oxbridge is one of the most exclusive clubs around.

I, for the life of me, will never understand those who are against selection at secondary level but are quite happy to join one of the most exclusive clubs around come degree time. I mean, I've never heard anyone say that they didn't want to go to an exclusive place like Oxbridge because of its lack of diversity and that they prefer to go to their local former Poly instead.

Ah, there are plenty of threads on here on that too...

Plenty of people would rather level down than up.

I've always thought they should be means tested so as to continue what they were set up for in the first place - academic kids who couldn't afford private education.

Just out of interest, what is deemed as 'tutoring'? Surely, as long as you're buying bonds books, for example, and doing work at home with the kiddies yourself, the child, in effect, is still being tutored? Natural ability could only be measured therefore if all the kids were state educated on a equal basis, with no other input whatsoever from a third party, and then who, was able to sit and pass the test. A situation impossible to measure I think.

"seeker you are against the system full stop. Which is fair enough, but the OP was specifically asking not to get into that and instead wanted to discuss ways of improving the entrance structures. Wjat I'm saying is that as flawed as it is it seems to work okay as a means of entering this partcular system."

Which is fine so long as you see the system as a way to give mor privilege to already privileged kids! If you think of the system, as it was conceived, as a way to promote social mobility, thennit is spectaculrly failing.

I don't know what the answer is. Well, I do, but I'm not allowed to say on thie thread! A test from a huge range of different ones, randomly selected the day before the test? Individual assessments from an educational psychologist? Ironically, the best selection would probably be made by an unbiassed unbiassed head teacher - if such a creature existed!

seeker - Both DP and I come from a working class background. Our kids went to state primary schools but are now at highly ranked selective Indies. Social economic mobility in living colour :)

We couldn't afford private tuition so we downloaded past papers and got our DCs to work through them. Anyone who has access to the Internet can do what we did. But not all parents have the ability to tutor their kids, I hear you say. Well, if they can't teach their kids how to pass an exam aimed at 11 year olds then you shouldn't be cheerleading comprehensives.

PooshTun - I thought you started this thread to discuss Grammar schools, yet your children are at independent schools.

Back in the 70s when you took your 11+, so did I and I got a fully funded place at an independent school courtesy of the LEA, as it freed up a Grammar place for another child. My parents are very working class, and really struggled to buy my school uniform for me. But they did it.

I had no tutoring, but passed both the 11+ and the indie entrance exam. It opened my eyes to another world - one that I couldn't fit into at 6th form as all the girls were in designer outfits and had their own cars bought for them by their wealthy parents.

My extremely bright and hard working friend failed the 11+, and was condemned to a sink secondary modern where he was unable to even sit a proper range of O-Levels.

On the other hand......

My DH grew up in a leafy middle class area that had no 11+, he attended the local comp, did extremely well, went to RG Uni, joined the fast stream Civil Service, & was head-hunted to work in the most prestigious department within his discipline.

Sadly I think that the true purpose of Grammar schools has been lost. If I could change one thing it would be to say that state Grammar schools should only be available to children who have been in the state system for all their primary education.

But in preference I would replace them with better Comprehensive schools. In fact, if you are going to have a system that takes out one group and educates them separately then I would support a system that identifies those students disaffected by school and put them together with a separate curriculum that engages and involves them.

Sorry this has turned into an essay - English was always my favourite subject

Just - I started this thread to discuss parents opinions on tutoring for selective schools. Along the way I seem to have referenced the term 'GS' more often than 'indie'. Not that it matters what TYPE of selective school is being discussed.

"We couldn't afford private tuition so we downloaded past papers and got our DCs to work through them. Anyone who has access to the Internet can do what we did. But not all parents have the ability to tutor their kids, I hear you say. Well, if they can't teach their kids how to pass an exam aimed at 11 year olds then you shouldn't be cheerleading comprehensives."

I honestly don't know mean!

"I honestly don't know mean!"

Your grammar/punctuation is a bit off but I am assuming that you are calling my comments and/or me mean. Well, I am sure that those posters that called me a snob or an elitist simply forgot to insert a smiley to show that they were joking and weren't being mean.

The way that I see it, if one is arguing that the comprehensive system works and that I and other similar parents are snobs or elitist for wanting a GS/Indie education for our kids then it kind of undermine one's argument if one can't teach an exam aimed at 11 year olds.

Sorry. I meant was "I honestly don't know what you mean" I wasn't calling you mean!

So you're saying that if comprehensive education is any good, a person who has been through it should have no problem tutoring thier child for selective school entrance exams?

Quite an assumption.

Bear in mind though, that most people will not be in the top sets of a comprehensive. And even for those that are- education and intelligence does not equate to the ability to teach anyone anything.

Have a ffirst, middle and highschool system. At 14 when kids are choosing their GCSEs the more academic go to a selective / grammer school, there should be several options for highschools, maybe arts / music / sports schools / technical practical.

Advantages

at 14 you should be able to get yourself on a bus to another town if you need to, you might not be happy with an 11 year old travelling so far.

Kids know by 14 whether they are going to get 10+ GCSEs or 3.

Selection is not on the basis of one test at 11 that you are tutored for.

I think the fact many grammar schools do not get 100% A-C at GCSE proves that the 11+ sends young people to grammar school who should not be there. Also, it has always been the case that girls do better in the test than boys and yet places have a gender quota.

Most grammar schools get 98-99% a-c.

And there has not been a gender quota for many years.

I agree with seeker. It is so simple, you set within the same school and then you can move up and down as appropriate.
In theory word factory is right about willing to put in graft, but a hardworking DC at 11 can have gone completely off the rails by 14 ( even from the best of homes).
I like some of breadandbutterfly's list. Not intensive coaching for all, a waste of time. If Durham has a test that you can't tutor for (not sure it is possible) that would be the one to go for.
I don't think it will ever be fair, which is depressing.

I would actually change the whole education system so that they all go to the comprehensive until 14 and then they change to different routes- academic or technical or practical- and they choose themselves.