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.

@seeker no, it means that the kids with SEN who get into GS are now being derecognised as being dyslexic for example as a result of getting into GS. I actually think that the 11+ could very very be improved to be more accessible to kids with conditions such as dyslexia and dyspraxia. In my limited experience (DD sat for two GSs) the allocation of extra time doesn't really address at all some of the issues that young kids with these conditions might face in sitting those exams. I also have issues with NVR but luckily for her the 11+ she sat didn't have an NVR paper.

It may be a coincidence and it's certainly just one person's anecdote but DD1 knows many more kids with SEN at her GS than there were at her primary school, and the same number of kids with potentially education affecting chronic medical conditions. From her perspective, she doesn't feel like part of a vanishingly small group of people in her school. She did at primary school though. But maybe that was just because she was unlucky then and lucky now.

@red - My comment about falling standards is based on experts and studies. If they say it is falling then I see no reason not to believe them.

In anycase, a comparison between now and say 40 years ago doesn't work. For example, when I was young working class kids like myself rarely went to university. Unis were for posh kids was a common attitude where I lived. Expectations have changed but the fact that there are more working class graduates doesn't prove that WC children have become cleverer because of education changes made in the last couple of decades.

"the fact that there are more working class graduates doesn't prove that WC children have become cleverer because of education changes made in the last couple of decades."

Not cleverer, no - but that isn't the argument, is it? Better educated, yes. The role of a school is to educate children. If on average, more children are more highly qualified, then the average level of education has increased. It is, of course, not quite as simple as that - if a child who might 40 years ago have left school to start an apprenticeship with no 'paper' qualifications now goes to a new university and gets a degree, there are discussions as to whether the old apprenticeship is a better or worse level of academic education than the new university and this of course complicates the analysis.

"falling standards is based on experts and studies"
Could you link to these? The point is that the study has to cover ALL young people at the point at which they leave education. A study which says that children who might have got a B at O level now get A* at GCSE is not the point, because it deals with such a small proportion of the whole cohort. To state that 'educational standards are falling', you have to show that the average levels of attainment by every child, measured objectively (ie taking into account all types of qualification, and also grade creep) are lower now than they were at the end of universally segregated education NOT that the absolute level of attainment by the tiny few at the top of the pyramid (ie those who get top levels in a particular qualification) has dropped.

"In anycase, a comparison between now and say 40 years ago doesn't work. For example, when I was young working class kids like myself rarely went to university. Unis were for posh kids was a common attitude where I lived. Expectations have changed but the fact that there are more working class graduates doesn't prove that WC children have become cleverer because of education changes made in the last couple of decades."

Could that be because comprehensive education has put A levels and higher and further education within to grasp of a lot of people for whom it was an impossible dream 40 years ago? Which is a good thing, right? Please tell me you think it's a good thing........

(By the way, a quick Google produced a paper saying that even the question 'have standards in A level mathematics changed over time' is a question that is, in practice, impossible to answer. How you can claim so confidently that the answer to the much wider question 'have educational standards for all young people for all subjects at the point at which they leave education fallen over time?' is a definite 'yes' is something I would like to see the links for)

It's a red herring to talk about the past and whether standards have risen or fallen and whether the methods of selecting children for different educational paths used in the past should be reintroduced (or, indeed, were better or worse than current systems).

The type of education that children today require to prepare them for tomorrow's world (of work, and of leisure) is different in many respects to the type of education they received in the past and may be still receiving. And children are not all the same, do not have the same talents and aptitudes and do require different sorts of education in order to fulfil their potential. Hence the necessity of selection in order to target educational needs most effectively.

" And children are not all the same, do not have the same talents and aptitudes and do require different sorts of education in order to fulfil their potential. Hence the necessity of selection in order to target educational needs most effectively."

No. "Hence the necessity for differentiation in order to target educational needs most effectively"

Bonsoir,

Surely you mean 'necessity of DIFFERENTIATION, INCLUDING SETTING, WITHIN A COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION' to target educational needs more effectively.

The educational needs of the vast majority of children are best met in a school system which allows flexibility across the middle range of abilities, as described earlier in the thread. That is a comprehensive system, not a segregated one, for reaons that I won't type out again.

The educational needs of the minority at each end of the ability spectrum - the exceptionally able or those with significant learning difficulties - should NOT drive the education of the majority.

I most definitely don't. I don't think that massive schools are the answer, and different sorts of education require different facilities.

So at 10 you decide what sort of education they will require for the next 8 years, and split them up irrevocably.

There are many possible choices, seeker. You are totally stuck on the same-old 11+ model. Think out of the box.

I have to say I agree with Bonsoir.
Having seen the Dutch system in action it is definitely better. Vocational education in this country is dreadful in comparison. There are many children here (not just special needs) who know that academia is not for them by the age of 14 and who would love to start quality vocational training alongside core academic subjects. My local and very popular comp still totally falls on vocational courses in my opinion- it offers them -in business studies, IT and health and social care! What about the practically minded, the future mechanic, farmer etc. There is nothing for them.
Dutch schools like ours have specialities - but they are not subjects, maths languages ect. They choose from engineering and technology, economics, agriculture, and care and welfare. So a friend's son who is at a school with an agriculture specialism is allowed to take lessons in animal husbandry, horticulture and pre-veterinary studies along-side his academic subjects.
With the school leaving age rising to 18 over the next few years this is the time the government should be looking at decent vocational education with proper investment and facilities.

And the dutch system doesn't "split them up irrevocably". There is no reason that the ability to move cannot be built into any system or that the split has to be at age 10 (NL move at age 12 for instance!) or we could go for a system that is "comprehensive" to the end of year 8/9 and split then.

"I don't think that massive schools are the answer, and different sorts of education require different facilities."

I can't quite see why you see that comprehensive = massive schools? Our local, excellent, comprehensive has an admissions number of just under 200, pretty much exactly the same size as the residual grammars of whom there are a couple in the county.

The education of the vast majority of children can be met in very similar settings - it doesn't need different facilities to teach lower ability or higher ability children English, for example, and all children will benefit from good D&T facilities, sports facilities, art studios, science labs etc.

If the education of some children might require more specialist facilities or access to specialist staff - e.g. university tutors to teach very able mathematicians, or students studying car mechanics to access garage facilities then surely it would be better to access these through local partnerships with employers or universities or technical colleges rather than to disadvantage the huge 'middle ground' of children who absolutely could be taught in the same buildings throughout their school lives?

I suppose what I'm asking is why should the children in a the Secondary Modern be taught in a totally separate institution from the children in a grammar when the vast majority of both groups of children could perfectly well learn in exactly the same facilities from exactly the same staff? It is surely better to enable the few who need it to access specialist facilities, even if that means looking off the school grounds, rather than to disadvantage the many? The child who misses the 11+ pass mark by 1 does not suddenly need car mecahnics nor does the child 1 mark above suddenly need access to university level maths teaching.... they could, and should, learn in the same educational facilities.

The 'problem' with vocational education is not schools, IMHO. Until society in Britain as a whole values technical, practical skills in the same way as other countries do, then whatever schools do in terms of vocational qualifications will always be seen as second best.

When we have the Dutch attitude to vocational skills, then we can have their vocational and technocal education model. While 'vocational' is seen as 'second best' to academic - ie while 'technical / vocational' skills are thought to be only for pupils who are seen as 'less academic' and are less valued by society - then there is no point in tinkering with the educational system.

"think out of the box"

Happy to! I though we were talking about what we've got in this country at the moment.

Increasing the availability of education isn't the same as improving the quality of education.

Yes we have proportionately more graduates compared to when I was young but does anyone seriously think that South Bank University churning out more graduates in Women Studies is proof that the comprehensive system works?

As I said above, Poosh
"If a child who might 40 years ago have left school to start an apprenticeship with no 'paper' qualifications now goes to a new university and gets a degree, there are discussions as to whether the old apprenticeship is a better or worse level of academic education than the new university and this of course complicates the analysis."

Which is why I've asked you for links to evidence of falling standards on average for all those leaving education (at whatever point they leave it) as the authors of such studies will have reached a considered view on such complications, which we are unable to on MN [though last time I said that, a real expert popped up here.... ahoy there, any really good educational statisticians / strategists out eher??]

Poosh, thinking again - are you SURE that those 'once SM' children who now go to comprehensives ONLY go on to "less prestigious" universities to do less prestigious degrees?

Absolutely sure?

My guess - again, I am sure that there are statistics out there that could prove it one way or another - is that yes, a proportion of the 'extra' graduates is due to increase in the number of university places driving increased access. However, I also suspect that there are many of those 'just below the 11+ pass mark' children who now, without that artificial ceiling imposed by different institutions, go on to claim their rightful places at good, academic universities.

"Which is why I've asked you for links to evidence of falling standards on average for all those leaving education"

Are you being serious teacher? Every few months there are details of studies quoted in various left and right leaning papers on the subject.

"Yes we have proportionately more graduates compared to when I was young but does anyone seriously think that South Bank University churning out more graduates in Women Studies is proof that the comprehensive system works?"

OK. As a Dragon would say "I'm out". Not worth debating with anyone who, after all that's been said on thie thread, can genuinely post that.

"are you SURE that those 'once SM' children who now go to comprehensives ONLY go on to "less prestigious" universities to do less prestigious degrees?

Absolutely sure?"

Please point to where I say ONLY.

@seeker - Your contradictory opinions will be missed.

Poosh, I am entirely serious.

I see studies which say, for example 'it may be slightly easier to get an A grade in GCSE chemistry than it used to be' - but that is not sufficient to give the information needed to show that 'educational standards are falling'.

For example, a child may get a B in Chemistry ... but then go on to get an A-level and then a degree in it. In the segregated system, they might have got a C in Chemistry ... and then not gone on to any further education at all. The final educational outcome for that child is HUGELY different in the two cases, and is not revealed by the 'micro analysis' of GCSE grades.

So yes, I am asking for a link which gives me, over a period of, say, 20 years (as going right back to fully segragated education might be unrealistic) the average, final educational attainment of EVERY child in the age cohort AT THE POINT AT WHICH THEY LEAVE EDUCATION. Corrected, of course, for all the complicating factors - ie peer reviewed, large cohort studies.

I repeat - not a study of a single qualification at a single age, as that does not give the required information.

You may not have said 'only' - but your point is instantly statistically invalid unless ALL 'new' (as in 'would not have graduated if had attended a SM in the past) graduates from comprehensives gain such qualifications.

I assumed that you would have realised that your comment HAD to imply 'only' to be valid... and therefore I replied on that basis.