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.

HNg on. You asked me if I had an able child in a comprehensive school. I said no I didn't have an able child of my own in one, but I have several able children in my family in them. how is that a non sequiteur? Am I missing something?

The thing is in comprhensive areas, the top sets are often not like grammars at all. You see here on MN, some comps don't offer more than one MFL, Latin or triple science. Sometimes DC are forced into taking a non academic subject because of timetabling issues.

Grammars are geared up to serve bright children, comps are geared up to try to serve children of all abilities. It's a very big ask.

@word mind you, GSs are far from perfect also. DD1's school forces all the kids to do triple science. She would much rather have done Drama or art or both. She gets superb marks in Chemistry and Biology but has no interest in either and worries about her dyspraxia having a negative impact. But apparently 'triple science is what brainy people do' - which I find tremendously short sighted and also a bit rude since I did not do 3 sciences at O level - just physics - and it's never been a problem for me.

I think all comprehensive schools now have to offer 3 sciences. And not all grammars have Latin.

Metabolise, why can't she do drama., art and 3 sciences?

Metabilis- sorry!

but but

If we got rid of fee paying schools and grammars, comps would HAVE to manage wouldn't they?

All comprehensives most certainly do not offer triple science, just as all most certainly do not offer more than one MFL.

hully I'm not convinced that just managing is where we want to be is it?

The problem is that it is much more effective to target an education at a specific ability group. Economies of scale and all that. But if you try to be all things to all men, it becomes more and more difficult to divide the resources.

No, manage to educate all our children approriately I mean.

seeker - In threads like this I can always rely on someone to turn up and post that they or someone they know went to a comp and they ended up with zillions of degrees THEREFORE the comp system universally works.

We don't have a comp system

we've never had communism eithr.

Well I do sometimes wonder if we can do that with the comprehensive system hully.

Sometimes I htink it makes no sense to throw together lots of pupils of wildly varying ability and expect the schools to tailor -make each and every education. There isn't enough time/energy/expertise/money.

We've been trying to make it work for some time now. The Blair administration spent an unprecedented amount of money and I really do think there was the political will to make it work. Yet social mobility within the UK has not improved and the UK is falling in educational standards as measured against similar countries.

Maybe it's time to accept the model isn't working and try something different?

PooshTun- I only mentioned it because somebody specifically asked me.

But since it's been brought up, I do wonder why positive anecdotes of comprehensive education don't count while every negative anecdote is called into play as evidence!

The reason it doesn't work in this country is class. In countries with a much smaller class and wealth divide it works because the start points/culture/expectations are much closer.

When my dc were in their state primary I used to go in all the time to interfere help. In my dd's class were roughly a third that could read/write, were "bright" had interested parents who took them to museums (you know what I mean) arranged piano lessons etc; one third with anxious parents who wanted them to do well but didn't have the tools to help, these kids struggled, were quiet and formed the kind of ignored middle and then the bottom third who didn't know the alphabet, were unwashed and had parents who stood in the playground and bellowed at them through the window to "fucking hurry up."

Sheer fucking insanity. Each group should have been taught on its own at its own pace. The bottoms would then have had a chance to catch up instead of always being the thick struggling nuisances.

aghhhhhhhhhhh

seeker - studies show that RG unis have a disproportionate number of GS and indie kids. Employers complain that school leavers need remedial lessons in maths and English. We are way down the international league tables. The fact that somebody knows somebody that has a positive story to tell shouldn't be used as 'proof' that the system works.

93% of kids go to state schools.

There are going to be some dunders.

Most of the population seems to manage ok.

A good comprehensive does just as good a job as a grammar. My DS was able and went to a RG university and did well, as did his friends. I deliberately moved out of a grammar school area- the best thing that I did.

I agree that a good comprehensive does the job but, if the studies about poor literacy are to be believed, there aren't that many 'good' ones around.

" The fact that somebody knows somebody that has a positive story to tell shouldn't be used as 'proof' that the system works."

I agree. That's why i said i only put mypositive experiences in in direct reply to a questipn. But by the same token, somebody having a negative story to shouldn't be used as proof that the system doesn't.

I could tell you many anecdotes of kids being failed by indies and grammar schools- but they wouldn't be relevant to the debate either.

Positive stories from either side of the argument doesn't prove anything but studies about falling literacy rates does :)

Lots of good comprehensives around. I love the way that people assume that if there is a grammar school their DC will get a place, they don't seem to realise that many clever DCs failed and did just as well - it was just much harder to work up. I know identical twins, nothing to choose between them and one was at grammar and one at secondary modern. A very good friend had parents who were both at Oxbridge, she failed - luckily she did brilliantly herself.
I also have friends who were utterly failed by grammar schools.
I have absolutely no regrets about moving away from a grammar school area.
My DCs comprehensive is not unusual.
People are weird! They don't seem to understand that if there are only comprehensive schools then 93% of the population are at them and the parents are not going to put up with a poor education.

Do teachers generally want a whole load of parents turning up and saying they're not putting up with the standard of education in a school?

Because DD will be going to a failing comp in September and the impression I get is that the school thinks it is the children and their families who are the problem.

Sadly it is the area, SeaHouses-the parents will be the problem. Nothing is fair.

How do you know it is the area?