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.

An excellent point seeker.

(Pizza Hut might need a good grade in Latin-when DS tried to get a Saturday job they had over 100 applications!-impossible to sort so they might as well say -'lets have the one with Latin'!)

They do all need to be educated. It is hopeless being educated to a high enough level to do open heart surgery and find that you can't work because there are no nurses, no cleaners, no caters etc and he/she can't get to work because there are no car mechanics, they can't eat out because there are no chefs, waiting staff, those to wash up etc..........I could go on and on.
We need good education for all-I would say that we can't be a civilized country without.

exotic - I accept that it is in the interest of the individual to have better qualifications than the other applicants for the Saturday job.

I'm just saying that it the overall scheme of things, society and the economy needs better trained doctors, teachers, engineers, general healthcare workers, better trained police officers etc. It doesn't need better qualified qualified waiting staff and those who wash up.

It is in the interests of society to hve the best educated everyone possible. Education is not just about learning a trade/profession, you know.

"It is in the interests of society to hve the best educated everyone possible"

Why? You keep making these kind of statements and then you just stop there. Why is it in the interest of society to have a waiter that has a good GCSE in Latin, to pick a silly example?

Because education is about being able to use your brain. It's just not about acquiring knowledge. Latin, for example is very good at helping to teach logical thinking.

And we want a population which is good at critical thinking- that way our politicians, for example, can better be held to account.

Oh, and, apart from anything else, you seem to be saying that it is possible to tell at the age of 11 that someone is destined to be a waiter for life. Nothing wrong with being a waiter, obviously. But allocating that job to an 11 year old strikes me as ridiculously deterministic.

Personally, I do believe that society as a whole benefits from education for all.

However, I just question whether the comprehensive model is the most effective way of doing it. It seems counter intuitive to even try to meet everyone's needs at the same time in the smae place.

Resources, energy, expertise cna only stretch so far. If you try to divvy them up then everyone just gets a bit. Not quite enough. No one seems to win.

I have not read all of this tread, so don't shout me down but these are my two pennies worth.

I really don't think primary teachers, head teachers etc should have a say in to as whether a child should go to GS or not. I live in a GS area and if the teachers and head of our local primary school had anything to do with it all kids from that school without exception would be going to the local comprehensive. Whilst the kids from the local private primary schools would probably all be recommended to go to the grammar school.

My oldest DD is at the local GS and the reason she got there was because she was tutored, albeit the DIY way, we did not have a private tutor, we bought the books and did it ourselves. During her time at primary school she was identified as Miss Average by the school from the day she started reception class and she was Miss Average when she left in year 6. When the school found out that she had passed the 11+ they told me that in their opinion my DD would struggle at GS. She has not had minute of extra help/tutoring etc since she left primary school and she is top set in Maths, French, German, English and Science.

Personally, I think the GS is brilliant, if you are in one.

In terms of social mix, and I know someone said something about this earlier in this tread, but at our local GS, percentage wise there are more children on FSM than there were at her primary school.

I think I would like to see the system the same as it is, but I would like to see more options to move between the selective an non-selective after the 11+ so that kids who do well in year 7 and beyond can still move to the GS. As it is the 11+ does close doors to a lot of children which is something that needs sorting out.

"Because education is about being able to use your brain. It's just not about acquiring knowledge"

Maybe at degree level and possibly at A Level but not at GCSE level. And this is something that you agree with me on.

In a previous thread about tutoring you talked about how some average ability kids get into University and then struggle because for the first time they had to think as opposed to regurgitate facts. That cramming facts for GCSEs will get you your A* but it won't teach you to cope with a demanding degree course.

Another contradictory post?

And even if it teaches him to use his brain, how does this make him get my pizza to me any quicker?

And even if it teaches him to use his brain, how does this make him get my pizza to me any quicker?

Perhaps he will bring you the right one :)

Maybe Jinx but then he will wheel out the stuff he studied for his Sociology GCSE and demand to know whether I think we can ever have a just society if the world continues to be divided into servers and served.

You have a much better recall of my posts than I do , PooshTun. I have no recollection of saying any such thing!

I don't think a person is defined by their job. A waiter is also a voter, a parent, a member of their community, a volunteer, a local politician- so many other things which he will do better with a good education. It is for the good of society that he does these things better.

And anyway, you still haven't told me how you can decide at 10 who, in your world, is deserving of a good education and who isn't.

It is for the good of society that he does these things better

Are you sure you aren't a politician? I mean, you keep answering my questions with soundbites that don't mean anything. How are better GCSE grades going to get my pizza guy do his 'things better' and beyond me getting the right pizza and him making the correct change, how is that for the good of society?

anyway, you still haven't told me how you can decide at 10 who, in your world, is deserving of a good education and who isn't.

How can you spend several days posting to the thread I started about how to make the 11+ fairer and then ask me to explain... again .... my position. I guess if you can't remember what you yourself posted then I shouldn't expect you to remember what I posted.

"I don't think a person is defined by their job. A waiter is also a voter, a parent, a member of their community, a volunteer, a local politician- so many other things which he will do better with a good education. It is for the good of society that he does these things better. "

PooshTun- did you miss the above bit of my post?

And could you remind me where I said that bit about undergraduates?

I did and that is why I asked you to elaborate on what you meant by for the good of society. I noticed that you dodged the question again.

Business leaders have gone on record as saying that there is a shortage of graduate engineers and software developers and that this shortage means that we are not competitive internationally. I can see how it is for the good of society if we produced more of these graduates but you don't explain how it benefits society to have better qualified Pizza servers.

You aren't going to ever answer this question are you?

In the words of 'Gordon Gekko' in the movie Wall Street, do you want me to come over and each your lunch for you? If you can't be bothered to trawl through your own posts then why do you expect me to do it for you?

There is a shortage of engineers etc because we just don't value them. We have far too many at university who study things that we don't need.
Being older, it is quite clear to me that people are coming out of university and doing jobs that used to be done by an intelligent 16yr old, who left grammar school after O'levels. Unfortunately they now have to waste the time and money getting the degree because they won't be looked at without. Sending 50% is mad!

While society doesn't actually benefit from a better qualified pizza server-I know that on a personal level it makes the whole experience much nicer!

Society doesn't benefit from having better qualified pizza servers. But it does benefit from behaving beet educated citizens, regardless ot job/trade/profession. And (this may surprise you, PooshTun,) waiters are citizens too! They only spend a %age of their time serving pizzas. It's what they do with the rest of their time that's important.

Incidentally, if you quote me, and I say I didn't say whatever it was, it's not up to me to prove I didn't- it's up to you to prove I did.

My pizza guy is a citizen as well? Around here they tend to be Polish but I'll let that pass.

This is like pulling teeth. How does having Grade B Latin GCSE make my pizza guy a 'better citizen'? And please define what constitutes a 'better citizen'. Is it someone who is active in local politics? Is it someone who regularly votes?

If you deny saying what I said you did then that's it. I'm not sufficiently interested in trawling through your old posts just so that I can go -ah ha! gotcha!

Ok. You either must be (literally) unbelievably stupid or you are playing some bizarre game that I have been suckered into for too long.

Anyone who thinks for five seconds can see why having well educated citizens is beneficial to society.

And, incidentally,anyone who has ever had a conversation knows that if you quote someone, it's up to you to show that the person you're quoting actually said whatever it is. Not the quotee to show that they didn't!

If the underclass gets too big we will soon see why all citizens should be well educated!

"You either must be (literally) unbelievably stupid or you are playing some bizarre game that I have been suckered into for too long"

:o :o I came to that conclusion about you several posting cycles ago.

What you see as a bizarre game is me trying and trying to get you to back up your statements. Even now you've avoided answering my question as to what you think a better citizen is. Is it someone who more up to speed with the issues? Is it someone who is active in politics? Or is merely someone who regularly votes? I can't engage you without knowing what you mean.

To me it is beneficial to society if we turned out a literate workforce. IMO it is not necessarily to the benefit of society if we turned out a workforce where everyone can quote Chaucer and Co. That is just one of my thoughts but I can't engage your thoughts because all you do is wheel out the same sound bites like "well educated citizens is beneficial to society" and when asked to expand on what you mean you reply that anyone that thinks knows the answer.

So yet again we finish another posting cycle without you answering any of the questions put to you. This repetition is getting boring so excuse me while I jump to something more interesting. Definitely not reasonable to chuck DH's dinner into the bin merely because he is 2 hours late home and didn't answer his mobile.

OK. For starters. And in no particular order. Well educated people are more likely than uneducated ones to-

Be able to engage in the democratic process in an informed way

Value and support their children's education

Feel they have a stake in society and therefore feel inclined to contribute to it in both formal and informal ways

Be less likely to be driven towards crime and anti social behaviour.