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.

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

Please clarify what you mean by that?

Agree PooshTun - and the dangers of poor children or those from unsupoportive homes being at a disadvantage in the 11+ can be removed by doing what they do in N ireland - giving all kids in state schools a year of 11+ preparation.

Don't forget that students in the Independent sector are not beyond having private tutoring too.

breadandbutterfly, not all kids in state schools have a year of 11+ prep. AFAIK the system is an opt-in one and those that do opt in may or may not be offered after school sessions.

Most my friends have their children privately educated. These children have had piano and tennis and cricket and violin lessons etc thrust upon them from the age of 4, along with Stagecoach for confidence and public speaking, in addition to their Saturday afternoon tutor....

In my experience, privately educated children have more tutoring and extra curricular strategically chosen activities than your average state school child.

A large percentage of children in my sons state school have tutoring, but from year 5.

But that is just my opinion based on what I have seen around me.

The point is, I think, there will never be a level playing field.

Some parents invest money and time in their DC's education. Others do not. No school system can undo this.

And indeed, why should it? If I choose to spend time and money ensuring my DC's future, and others choose to spend their time and money playing golf or training goldfish, then that is my choice.

Okay, I get that some parents do not have money to pay for education, tutoring etc, but all parents have the option to instill in their DC the importance of education, and give them time/ a quiet place for study etc that they need to do well.

"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"

DS's Year 4 teacher wasn't that good either. DS would do maths the 'adult' way as opposed to the 'children' way being taught to the class which was a method that only worked with small numbers but is used because it makes it easier to teach young children the basics. DS was forced to follow the method being taught to the class which led to him being bored and then disruptive.

DS's Year 5 teacher was quite good. He recognised DS's maths ability so he would set DS separate work.

Things changed in Year 6. The teacher for that year would set 10 minute math challenges which DS would finish it in 3 minutes. Instead of setting harder work, she told DS to instead focus on finishing even faster???

We took this up with the teacher at the parents evening where we had the above described conversation which was that there are kids struggling to be average and that she was going to focus on helping them as opposed to helping a kid that is already above the national average.

If I was the parent of a kid that was struggling I would be applauding the teacher's inclusive attitude. But since I'm not, I won't. :)

It was at this point we decided to go private (we have no GS in our catchment).

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

Please clarify what you mean by that?*

One of Jesus's followers complained that Jesus was bathing his feet in expensive oils and that the money would be better spent on helping the poor. Jesus replied that the poor will be with us always and that He would only be with them for a short time so its ok to indulge oneself.

As for the pushy parents bit, there are low income parents out there that are pushing their sons to be the next Wayne Rooney or the next Taylor Swift or Miley Cyrus. Then there are those pushing their kids with regards to the 11+. Once in they will be pushing them to be top of the class. Then its GCSE and then A levels. Just because a child is in a good school doesn't mean that the tutoring will stop for some pushy parents.

"In my experience, privately educated children have more tutoring and extra curricular strategically chosen activities than your average state school child"

I sort of agree. Yes to the tutoring. No to the activites.

It depends on where you live. Although I complain about my state primary's approach to the academics I can't fault the other things.

We had a cricket club, netball club and a football club. Afterschool extra's like ceramics club and arts & craft club were available for a nominal fee. Outside of school the other kids did the usual ie swimming, gymnastics, guides, Stagecoach and the like.

Obviously if you were to look at children in a deprived area then your point would probably be accurate.

As for 'strategically chosen activities' our DCs learned three musical instruments each. They were members of orchestras and they attended workshops. It gave them a great cv come music scholarship application time but I don't think in general it has much of an impact on ones application. Schools look for signs of whether a kid is motivated or a team player. A DC isn't going to win or lose points if he plays football instead of something 'posh' like riding horses.

bread - I don't think that giving all kids in state schools a year of 11+ preparation is the answer. I mean, it is a year spent on teaching kids to pass an exam as opposed to teaching them science, English, maths etc. This is particularly significant since the experts keep telling us that many 11 year olds go onto secondary school barely able to read and write.

I think I said earlier that I think that we sometimes put too much emphasis on tutoring. My point is that selection at 10 is inherently unfair. Even if nobody was tutored, the children of middle class and/or educated and/or engaged parents are going to do better. And at 10 it's a bit much to expect a child, however bright, to realise that and be proactive in helping themselves. So those children, who have the background and the support to do well get even more advantage, and disadvantaged children get left behind. Again. In a comprehensive school, a child without a supportive background at least has a chance of getting into the top sets. If the top set has been creamed off to a grammar school at 10, then they can't.

Are you SURE Jesus meant that?

It sounds a rather Gove-ish interpretation

yy seeker

And yy Quint. It would be harder to say which confers the greater advantage, the social or the academic privilege.

"Are you SURE Jesus meant that?"

You mean about pushy parents? :)

You obviously think that Jesus meant something else when he was challenged for allowing I think it was Mary Magdalene to annoint his feet with expensive oils.

I dunno, just doesn't sound very Jesus-y. I shall investigate.

There will still be a top set in any comp Seeker, Grammar around the corner or not.

Yes but it won't be a proper top set is the point because the people who would have made up most of it will be at the Grammar.

It only takes 30 kids to make a top set Hully and that could be made up from those kids that didn't do as well as predicted on the day of their 11+ exam for whatever reason - no? Even in Kent, only 50% of those who are 'capable' of passing the 11+ 'pass'.

There are things to be fearful of when choosing getting stuck with a comp but the lack of a top set is not one of them.

"My point is that selection at 10 is inherently unfair"

I agree but selection at 13+ is even more unfair.

At 11 they are tested on verbal reasoning and non VR plus English in some tests. Yes a child can be tutored for this but at least the test does not assume taught knowledge of maths, science and languages which is what forms your typical 13+ exam.

One can exam 13 year olds on VR and non VR but that doesn't really tell the school whether you have enough knowledge to pursue a demanding course. Remember GCSEs are just round the corner at that stage. A 13 year old could've been tutored to pass a VR/non VR test at the expense of the core subjects.

And then there are the prep schools who tutor their kids for the 13+. If you think that your state school kid is at a disadvantage at the age of 11 then think how much more of a disadvantage they would be against prep kids who have spent the extra two years being prepared for the 13+ and heavily tutored in the core subjects.

"At 11 they are tested on verbal reasoning and non VR plus English in some tests."

All the 11+ tests in this area are English, Maths and, in some cases, VR.

The problem is that, IMO, a one-size-fits-all education system will fail all but the middle group.

Hully

Mark 14.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

I knew O level Religious Studies would be useful one day. Finally. :)

I've bin having a look. There is a very detailed analysis that says the anointing is prefiguring his death which is why he says I won't be here long (not that therefore he should be indulged). Inneresting