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.

Most countries do not have two tier systems and they appear to be doing fine.

The elite have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is.

Whether you have mixed classes or sets, the disruptive children are still going to be in the school disrupting somebody's education. Setting is by ability or attainment, not behaviour.

I would also absolutely kick out the disruptive ones to a unit where they get specialised one to one and counselling for whatever ails them.

Would you also have specialised one-to-one for the children who are brighter than all their peers?

yes, if needed

Setting by behaviour, now that's an idea.

Hully, I agree, although I'd prefer a special school to a unit. A lot of disruption is persistent low level though and is a matter of school behaviour policies and how effectively they are implemented and supported.

A lot of support for setting and splitting children up seems to be an attempt to get away from either problem behaviour, poor school environments and poor teaching. I don't think the purpose of grammar schools can be to remove a few children from a bad situation.

I would have smaller classes and sets and setting within sets and differentiated work and sport EVERY DAY and yoga and lessons about how life works and peace and love and meditation and organic food and music, dancing and art.

I'd have specialist one to one teaching some of the time for truly exceptional children, not the top 10 or 20%.

If the experts are to be believed, children are disruptive in class because they aren't properly socialised at home or because they struggle academically or because they aren't being challenged.

For all I know DCs indie friends might spit on the unwashed masses or they may roll a drunk for his money as they walk home or they may do drugs but in the classroom they are well behaved

yy or send them on short courses to universities etc

"Most countries do not have two tier systems and they appear to be doing fine."

No, Hully, most countries have multiple systems and most of the older educational systems are underperforming.

Now i'll have to go and look up every single country and education system.

I may be some time.

@hullygully My DS goes to the local comp. Nobody there feels second class. They aren't second class. It's a great school. My DD1 goes to a superselective GS which is the only one in the LEA so, not really local (it takes an hour on the bus). They accelerate the kids, they all do their exams in Y10, and they get among the very very best results in the country, year in, year out. These are seriously hard working kids. I know some comps accelerate their top streams but by all accounts results aren't necessarily great and it sets the kids apart in their school context. My DD1 was badly bullied at primary school for being different (conspicuously academic and 'swotty' yet also conspicuously having an SEN (dyspraxia) which led many of the kids to believe she 'shouldn't' be getting all the top marks etc and was just a teachers favourite not actually clever because, hey, she couldn't walk through a door reliably without smacking into the frame). If my DD1 was at the comp she would be as miserable as sin because the 4 or 5 kids who made her life hell at primary school are all there. She is blissfully happy at the GS. DS on the other hand was very happy at the comp up until Easter - he hasn't been at school all term because of whooping cough so it remains to be seen whether he is happy when he goes back and has to catch up.

@seeker it is most definitely NOT a case of what's good for my child and everyone else can go get the mumps. Because I have a child at each sort of school. It's a case of letting each child have an appropriate education for their own requirements, and not sacrificing the sort of child that will do well in a superselective on the altar of 'all shall have prizes'.

You never hear people whining about PE making kids feel like second class citizens. In my experience, that is the ONE issue that really does do that. But the bullies are usually good at it, and have kids who are good at it, so that's allowed.

Serves you right for spouting nonsense

I'd have specialist one to one teaching some of the time for truly exceptional children, not the top 10 or 20%.

yy or send them on short courses to universities etc

Hold on. Aren't you going the other way? i.e. making the system even more selective and dare I say it, elitist?

Just because I don't think that the academically able should be held back doesn't mean I'm in favour of a select few getting a even more select education.

I can't understand why people think that the academically able are held back in comprehensive schools.

@seeker Because they are. I was. And things have got a lot worse since my day.

Any actual evidence? Or is it just "it is because I say so"? Because I could say 'No it isn't because I say it isn't" but I wouldn't do that because it would be silly,

seeker - have you had a very able child in a comprehensive school?

Nope. But my niece is starting med school in September from one. Another niece just finishing her PhD. A dp with a good degree from
a Russell group. And so on. Your point?

PT, sorry my post may have been confusing because I was referring to an earlier post.

I am in favour of one to one tutoring some of the time for children who are exceptionally able. That would be a child whose ability in, for example, maths was so far ahead of any peer group in their locality that they would be better suited to having some undergraduate level teaching. I also think that certain children need one to one, or very small group, tuition in art.

I am also in favour of selecting approx the top and bottom 10% either through superselectives or within comps through setting. I am not in favour of grammar schools that take 25-30% of children because I think it has a damaging impact on children in other schools. I also think there should be opportunities to move up to a superselective in years 9 and at the start of sixth form.

I am not in favour of setting of children who fall within a broad, middle ability range because I attended two comps - one with sets and one without and felt that the learning experience was better in mixed ability form groups. Setting of children who aren't at either end of a bell curve seems to concentrate disruptive pupils into certain sets, which is damaging for the other children in the same set.

Could you explain yours, seeker? I don't see what your data has got to do with the point at all.

You asked me if I had an able child in a comprehensive school. I said I didn't but I have lots in my family. My "data" was a response to your question.

I think that you have absolutely no clue what happens to able children in comprehensive schools, seeker. You posted a complete non-sequitur!