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.

Of course any type of school will fail some children, but I think we are trying to look at whether comprehensives fail more children or not?

Also what is your definition of 'fail'? Is it failure to achieve many/any qualifications and become a total dropout, or failure to achieve 5A*-C, or failure to achieve what they may have been capable of elsewhere? Very different things. By the last measure at least, unless you can know how any individual child would have performed at a different school it's difficult to know if they've been failed or not and the others also only work at a statistical level not an individual one to as all schools will have some failures on any measure, the question is how many is acceptable?

But I read somewhere that Britain has the biggest gap of just about anywhere between state and private education - much, much larger than just about everywhere else and to me that suggests that state schools in the UK (the vast majority of which are comps) probably are failing children somehow although there may be other explanations.

I dare say that if I lived in London I wouldn't like comprehensive schools. I wouldn't live in London.

I live in London and am very happy to do so. My children went to two of the best comprehensives in the country. They succeed because the catchment area is not cluttered up with grammer schools creaming off the most academically gifted children and the better teachers.

Nice to know-I think that is the trouble of relying on TV etc- you get a false view.

Oh I'm not trying to pretend there are aren't some bad ones. Just sticking up for the ones that are good :)

exotic - You may be able to say that you won't live in an area which has a failing comprehensive but not everybody has the option to choose where they live.

Do you seriously think that the families living there do so because they can't be bothered to move to an area which has a functioning education system and safe streets?

It's easy to be idealistic when you live in the burbs. For some of these bright but poor kids the local GS may be the only thing that will save them from the cycle of poverty and street crime.

"It's easy to be idealistic when you live in the burbs. For some of these bright but poor kids the local GS may be the only thing that will save them from the cycle of poverty and street crime."

Well it might- if they had the remotest chance of getting in.........

You could argue that a grammar school is what 'could save bright but poor kids' from the 'cycle of poverty and street crime'. Personally I think that at best it would/does help a few. A total comprehensive school system (which incidently isn't about lumping everyone in together so that bright kids cant prosper or less bright kids get help) would be a simpler and fairer approach that would help many more children.

Firstly the 'bright but poor kids' don't stand a chance these days- pushy middle class parents have 'bought' the place for their own child who probably isn't as bright.
Secondly, why do only the 'poor but bright children' deserve to be saved? It seems we just abandon the rest as 'know your station and stay there'!

Paying for private education, paying for tutoring for a selective school or buying into the catchment area of a good comprehensive are all the same- unfair.
Probably paying for private education is the most honest.

You forgot "having the right religion" in there.

You are quite right - lots take that option.

There is no fair way. I think the lottery ticket system is thought fair, but I would think it very unfair to have a good education based on chance.
The only fair way is to bring all schools up to a desirable standard.

I do think people have an idealistic view of grammar schools "Oh, for the days when the son of a parlour maid could get to be Prime Minister"

And the supporters just refuse to address the issue of the other 77% I think largely because they always assume that if they lived in a grammar school area their child would be a sheep rather than a goat!

If ever anyone is petitioning to bring back grammar schools I say 'you mean bring back secondary moderns'. I really don't think they care. I am old enough to have been in school when the whole country was 11+ and the results were very divisive, with people having DCs at both schools, and often the results were surprising. I taught a girl in year 5 who was a real high flyer, not only grammar school material, but I would say future head girl of a grammar school. She moved to Buckinghamshire and one of the staff came in one morning and said 'Amy X failed 11+' we were all stunned.
The majority of DCs will fail- even the majority of MNetter's DCs!

"The majority of DCs will fail- even the majority of MNetter's DCs!"

Surely not!

"Paying for private education, paying for tutoring for a selective school or buying into the catchment area of a good comprehensive are all the same- unfair.
Probably paying for private education is the most honest."

There is absolutely nothing "dishonest" or "unfair" when parents seek educational advantage for their children. Seeking advantage for their own children is what parents are supposed to do.

"There is absolutely nothing "dishonest" or "unfair" when parents seek educational advantage for their children. Seeking advantage for their own children is what parents are supposed to do."

And devil take the hindmost?

What about the society we are creating for the future?

It is the job of educational establishments to treat pupils with fairness (which does not mean giving them all exactly the same thing). Parents should seek to promote their own children's learning in all circumstances, in order to instill in children the idea that they themselves should seek to learn to their full potential in all circumstances.

seeker - re your comment about poor black kids not having the remotest chance of getting into a GS, according to your earlier posts its committed parents that is the key and not tutoring.

Are you saying here that black kids don't stand a chance because they are black or because black parents aren't committed to the education of their children?

Did I say anything about poor black kids?????

It is unfair- I did it, would do it again. It isn't dishonest but it is unfair. Many people, or even most people, are stuck with their catchment area school. I am a pushy parent- my parents were pushy parents and I am very grateful.
I don't call a selective system fair when you are selecting the majority of children for failure, before many have had time to show their potential. Winston Churchill would no doubt have failed if his parents had not had the money to bypass the system.

exoticfruits - you are confusing who and what is "unfair" (versus your last post). Are parents being unfair or dishonest? No. Is the system unfair or dishonest? Perhaps.

"seeker - re your comment about poor black kids not having the remotest chance of getting into a GS, according to your earlier posts its committed parents that is the key and not tutoring.

Are you saying here that black kids don't stand a chance because they are black or because black parents aren't committed to the education of their children?"

PooshTun- please point me to where I said this.

All schools should provide the best possible education for the children in their care.

But not all chilldren would benefit from or enjoy a grammar school education, it is extremely suitable for those who want an academic education - but lots of kids have little interest in this as well as little aptitude.

We should be ensuring that the less academic go to excellent schools that cater for their abilities and interests - but equally we should allow those of an acadeic bent to get a good academic education in grammar schools designed for that purpose. Not everyone can be a university lecturer or teacher or whatever or needs to be or wishes to be - but grammar schools provide an important opportunity for those genuinely interested in academic study to get this.

I teach non-academic 16-18 year olds and they are not disadvantaged by not being at a grammar school. Nor by the fact that grammar schools exist to teach their more academically-minded peers. They are disadvantaged by the poor standard of vocational education in this country. That is what needs to be improved.

There is no point in getting rid of schools that teach academic subjects very well - that does not help the non-academic at all. What they need is a respected system that will teach them in a way that interests them and allows them to get a good and well-paying job afterwards. We need something more akin to the German system, where good vocational educational is a core part of the system.

Comprehensive schools where everyone is made to fit into the same round hole no matter whether they are a square or triangular peg help almost no-one. There is nothing wrong with differentiated education - in fact it is the ideal - as long as all parts of the system are equally well-resourced and respected and lead to positive (but different) outcomes.

Fundamentally, children are not identical and treating them as if they are benefits no-one.