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.

But what abut the student who excels at maths, science and technical work but is rubbish at the humanities, where do you place them?

Or the student who excels at arts & humanities, but struggles with maths and science?

BTW just describing 2 of my own 3

Poosh - I am arguing against the Grammar system, as I believe that an education system funded by the state should offer equal opportunities at all points to all students.

I am not arguing against private provision. Each person earns their own money and should be able to choose how to spend it. If you dislike the state offering then I think you should be able to choose a private setting.

OP - it's a lovely idea but there is no test for "natural ability". We are all a product of both our genes and our environment, as well, of course, as our own graft. Why should "natural ability" be rewarded anyway?

Nice and easy in the comprehensive school JustGettingByMum-they are in top sets for some subjects and low ones for others.

The grammar school isn't interested in fairness-they are offering an education for the very bright-they don't suit the rest. The problem with tutoring is that you can take the average and drill them long enough and hard enough to pass-I have seen it happen. They then can't cope. The exam is seen by people as an end-success-they got there! It is actually the start and they have to live up to it. Tutoring for the very bright is fine-they will cope for the next 7 years.
Natural ability isn't been rewarded-it is is being given the appropriate education.

People need to look at their DC and think 'which school would suit them?' instead they look at the school think 'my child won't get there-I must get a tutor to drill them on exam technique'.

Selective school are for the high flyers-not for the average or moderately above average.

Seeker - Thanks for the clarrification.

"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"

Yes, that is what I am saying. At the end of the day it is an exam aimed at 11 year olds!

I may be missing something but most teachers have been to comprehensive schools (and gone on to top universities) -I am sure they can tutor 11 year olds! I went to a secondary modern-have maths A'level and went to University. (people do talk drivel -unless I did misunderstand)

"I am arguing against the Grammar system, as I believe that an education system funded by the state should offer equal opportunities at all points to all students"

IMO the state DOES try its best to offer equal opportunities to all students. Having said that, we have no GSs in our catchment which is why we went private. I know it is not what you meant but in our case I agree that the state isn't offering my DCs equal opportunities :)

I've known various families that arrived in the UK from places like Vietnam, India and China, with little money and even less English. A generation later many of their children are University graduates. You can't get more 'equal' than that.

Things can never be 100% equal. I accept that. I mean, we all know someone who got their job because of who they knew or which school they went to or because x's dad plays golf with a director of the company etc etc. But the system is reasonably equal as I tried to illustrate with my foreign friends.

The opportunities are there. Whether you take them and use them is another matter.

exotic - I was referring to parents and not teachers.

It's all very well saying that an education system should offer "equal opportunities" to all right through, but pupils' ability to access the curriculum and understand and assimilate what is being taught varies wildly, and increasingly, as they progress through the system. Do we want all DCs being taught at a pace that suits the bottom 25%?

"Do we want all DCs being taught at a pace that suits the bottom 25%?"

Actually, the pace is more the middle 50%. If your kid is very bright then there isn't much support there. But if a kid is at the bottom then, unless he/she is SN then there isn't much support there either.

DS's Year 6 state school teacher summed it up when we complained that DS was finding the work too easy. Her objective, she said, was to bring the whole class up to the national average and that if I expected more from a school then I should have gone private in the first place. And this is a school rated as Excellent by Ofsted.

PooshTun - I agree that in practice it is the middle 50% who are being targeted by state education and that the top 25% and the bottom 25% are not getting what they need.

Hence the popularity of private education in the UK, which does manage to serve the needs of the most able pupils (if they are able to access it).

I still think that an adult who went to a comprehensive school should cope with doing a few test papers with an 11yr old. If they can't and have a bright child that would be a good time to get a tutor.

Less than 7% of the population are accessing private education.

I am going to throw myself into the debate with a perhaps rather naive question:

If schools were good enough, would tutoring be necessary?

In my sons school children who are deemed "national" average wont get any extra help to reach their potential. Extra help goes to those below and those above the national average. The top children are stretched the most. A group of children are very good, their parents pay for tutoring, and in addition they get extra support in school. These children are then sent around representing the school in various academic competitions and challenges. Of course, this benefits the school. But most of all it benefits these privileged children, and they will be first in line for independent sponsorship, as they have been showcased at events.

When it comes to SATS results and other assessments, the school is benefiting immensely from parents having recognized that their children are not getting the education they want from the school and have enlisted tutors.

The results will be an amalgamation of what the school is achieving together with what the parents invest in tutoring. So gives a false impression of what the school can offer, when other parents are looking at the reports and achievements of that school.

For that reason, Ofsted Outstanding in a certain "socio-economic area" may to a certain degree not give the real picture of the school.

It may have been rated excellent by Ofsted, PooshTun-but as a teacher I am appalled. You differentiate. There is no reason to hold back the bright. Your job is not to get everyone up to average, it is to teach to the needs of the children in the class. (the teacher can't have given that view to Ofsted-who will have been looking at the books of above average, average, below average and SN -and expecting different work!)

"When it comes to SATS results and other assessments, the school is benefiting immensely from parents having recognized that their children are not getting the education they want from the school and have enlisted tutors.

The results will be an amalgamation of what the school is achieving together with what the parents invest in tutoring. So gives a false impression of what the school can offer, when other parents are looking at the reports and achievements of that school."

I agree very much with this. Clever children with supportive parents who receive a huge amount of topping-up give a false image of a school's performance to the outside world. Worse still, schools are often in denial about the topping-up and are self-congratulatory about pupil achievements for which they are owed no credit.

Many schools are good enough, but it isn't their job to teach for a test. They don't do verbal reasoning for example and it wouldn't be fair to put a DC in cold when others have had practise.

I agree with seeker re state schools for all. Just have good local schools with sets and great flexibility within them. Job done.

Sorry to refer back to the first page of the thread, but I'm interested in seeker's analogy of the juggling school.

Her point is that the school cannot do everything, and that the parents attitude to education goes a long way to ensuring their DC's success at schoool.

Surely the same can be said about two children at a comprehensive school? The child with engaged parents will do better, and be in higher sets than the child whose parents don't see the point. So how do comprehensives solve this problem?

In my area people don't need grammar schools-just as well as there aren't any-and the comprehensives serve all needs.

If there are no grammar schools the top sets at the comprehensive are the grammar school.

yars, and all pupils have a chance to move up to them (or down from them) in different subjects at different times.

Yes, Bonsoir, there is a faith school local to me which has excellent results. I know many parents from the school via a local sports club who freely admit that most of them are tutored.

This point about how the 11+ is unfair because some kids have been tutored for years gets made quite regularly and I've never really understood it.

We started home tutoring DS in Year 5 during the Easter break. He started with mock results of 60%. After 6 months he was averaging 90%. We could have tutored him for another 6 months and he wouldn't have significantly improved. In fact, he was showing signs of going the other way. The phrase 'over cooked' sprung to mind.

Tutoring teaches you technique. Once you've learn the technique and how to spot what the question is really asking you then that is it. You can be tutored for another 5 years and its not going to significantly improve your results.

So I don't understand why posters go on about how the 11+ is unfair because some kids have been tutored for years. As far as I was concerned, I didn't consider these stereotypical kids to be serious competition for my DCs. I mean, no doubt their brains would have been either been turned to mush from all those years of repetitive testing :) or else they couldn't be that clever if they needed year-in year-out tutoring.

"If schools were good enough, would tutoring be necessary?"

DS is at a highly ranked selective. There are kids there that regularly score 100% in the tests and top grades in the homework. If the gossip is to be believed, these kids at this 'good enough' school are tutored.

As Jesus might have said, the poor and pushy parents will be with us, always:)