I find it frustrating that in my town there are three specialist schools for kids that drop out of mainstream education and have behaviour problems, but no specialist schools for academically gifted children.
Or specialist doctors for very healthy people - or specialist job centres for people who have no difficulty finding work - or special subsidised buses for people who have cars.
really interested in this thread as my wife is very keen to tutor our oldest (9) for 11 plus but the cost is ridiculous and I thought were were quite well off
Is tutoring really worth it?
We have been quoted 300 a month
Tutoring will teach your child the technic required for the 11+, which imo is a big thing.
Agreed, my girlfriend is a teacher and will start tutoring this year because schools no longer cover everything that's included in the 11+ papers by the time the kids come to sit them in Sept (or so I'm told).
I was also surprised to hear that schools care more about the SATS results in year 6 rather than the 11+. No idea why though, I usually zone out when teacher talk starts.
I find it frustrating that in my town there are three specialist schools for kids that drop out of mainstream education and have behaviour problems, but no specialist schools for academically gifted children.
Or specialist doctors for very healthy people - or specialist job centres for people who have no difficulty finding work - or special subsidised buses for people who have cars.
False equivalence. Good pedagogy means children ought to be taught at a level that challenges them.
I'm not sure I qualify to add anything to this debate. My last experience of school (a grammar) was nearly 50 years ago. Nonetheless, my Dad was a barge builder, so I suppose you could say that social mobility worked for me.
More recently, my oldest friend, who has just retired from being a grocery delivery driver for Sainsbury's was telling me about his son. He went to Hurstmere in Sidcup (which I think is now an academy?) was seen as having some potential but was a troublemaker who did not enjoy school. Nonetheless, he somehow got transferred to Chis & Sid GS at sixth form level and went on to university. He's now an actuary for Aviva.
Oh, the Govt. education woman this morning on Breakfast TV says they are looking at ways of making the entrance process fair so that private tutoring of someone who might then hit a dead end because they have no innate talent will not help and access will be open to all if they have ability. By contrast, the Labour woman seemed keen to point out that only 3% of pupils at Grammars qualified for free meals. I'm guessing that when you look at where grammar schools are presently located, that's not really surprising?
Goverments always put the cart before the horse. All schools should be uniformly excellent, sadly the government still can't manage this. Its easier to ideologically bash grammar schools than address the failures of the education system.
It makes me angry that so many kids are cheated out of their education. I see it all the time in the RAF. Bright people let down by feckless parenting and poor schools having to be salvaged by the armed forces
A long long time ago I went to a grammar school which was right next to the local secondary school. No mixing of ANY sort was allowed between teachers or pupils of the schools. You could get detention for being seen talking to a boy from the secondary school while in uniform.
Absolutely disgusting pointless segregation for no reason other than to try to teach us the same feeling of entitlement that public school boys get.
Didn't really work on me as you've probably guessed!
Sounds like Chis & Sid and Hurstmere back in the 1970s
How much is spent by government per child in grammar school? How does that compare to the cost per child in a comp?
I'm guessing that cost correlates reasonably closely to number and quality of teachers, class size and other factors that might affect a child's education.
I believe the reality is that grammar schools get less funding per pupil than comprehensives. The local authority funding per pupil is consistent throughout but pupil premiums and SEN provision would tend to take comps above grammar.
There may be a disparity between 'intelligence' and 'academic achievements'. I tend to believe there is a relationship between wealth and academic achievement, but not a relationship between wealth and intelligence.
Intelligence is a lazy word for me to use since intelligence is not restricted to academic ability. I was using it as a lazy synonym for academic ability.
This is a very important point and emotional intelligence is very important but not measured. Maybe because it is very hard to measure. To be honest I haven't got a passion to fight grammar schools. Probably because I think it is ludicrous to argue they make things unfairer when the system does that already. Grammar schools are a waste of time and not a solution to anything, but my annoyance is that they are being seen as a measure to improve education without learning the lessons. But those opposing them must realise there are currently good state schools and schools that many parents would fight to ensure their children don't go to them.
It is harsh and radical, but the solution is not being able to choose your school - get rid of all selective options - private, faith etc... All schools should have a mixed ability intake. Then the good parents instead of fighting to keep their kids away, fight and demand improved standards within the local school they are given. The rest would sort itself out around that driver.
Also, if a child has no medical reason for non engagement and disruption, parents should face detentions and hassle. A penalty for having kids and not bringing them up properly which might put a few off!
@Southendaddick re: cost of tutoring....sessions in SE10/SE3 are about £25 an hour....a fair few of kids in my son's old primary class had them. We spoke to 1 tutor to see if worth it for our son...she said that there is definitely a 'skill' to passing the 11+ so there were techniques to learn BUT if you didn't have ability you wouldn't pass, particularly as written comprehension and the ability to think 'creatively' (i.e. you have to write a short story on a given subject) are included as part of the test and you it's tough to tutor/teach that if the kid doesn't already have a level of ability. We bought some practice books, worked through them and off we (well, he) went.... Good luck in whatever you choose to do.
I find it frustrating that in my town there are three specialist schools for kids that drop out of mainstream education and have behaviour problems, but no specialist schools for academically gifted children.
Or specialist doctors for very healthy people - or specialist job centres for people who have no difficulty finding work - or special subsidised buses for people who have cars.
False equivalence. Good pedagogy means children ought to be taught at a level that challenges them.
OK point taken!
But I still don't really see why teaching the 10 - 20% most gifted children needs to be done in a segregated specialist environment. By all means put them together for lessons and challenge them but do we really need to build completely different schools to achieve this?
On the other hand it seems to me that children who have dropped out with behavioural problems would benefit from a different environment - almost by definition.
really interested in this thread as my wife is very keen to tutor our oldest (9) for 11 plus but the cost is ridiculous and I thought were were quite well off
Is tutoring really worth it?
We have been quoted 300 a month
Tutoring will teach your child the technic required for the 11+, which imo is a big thing.
We've been fortunate as my daughters Mum is Head of Year 6 at the same school. She's been spending an hour with her one night a week for the last 18 months working on the sort of questions which would come up so as she's prepared. When my daughter has been coming to me at weekends, she's been in the habit of bringing practice papers with her and she'd do one, maybe two straight after breakfast on a Saturday. Tutoring really doesnt have to cost the earth. As long as you're prepared to put in some time and effort with your kids...and you understand the questions yourself of course.
Having said that, I was shocked at one of the papers she brought home a few weeks ago. English comprehension. Read a page of text and then answer questions on it. Simple you would think. I'm not joking, I done A-Level English Literature back in the day and some of this text left me scratching my head. I'm convinced now that if I had my time again now, I would fail!
The good news is she says she felt the 11+ went ok yesterday. She's sitting the local Grammar entrance test tomorrow too. Then the stress levels will reduce. Her Mum has been tearing her hair out over the holidays as my daughter has seemed to have picked up my 'cant be arsed its the holidays' gene and has not wanted to practice without a tantrum for the last 6 weeks, preferring to Face Time her friends, making up dance routines or practicing her Gymnastics. Its that age I guess!
I feel sorry for her today as this is her first day of actually being taught by her Mum lol. I would never want to be that child in class.
I'm not sure I qualify to add anything to this debate. My last experience of school (a grammar) was nearly 50 years ago. Nonetheless, my Dad was a barge builder, so I suppose you could say that social mobility worked for me.
More recently, my oldest friend, who has just retired from being a grocery delivery driver for Sainsbury's was telling me about his son. He went to Hurstmere in Sidcup (which I think is now an academy?) was seen as having some potential but was a troublemaker who did not enjoy school. Nonetheless, he somehow got transferred to Chis & Sid GS at sixth form level and went on to university. He's now an actuary for Aviva.
Oh, the Govt. education woman this morning on Breakfast TV says they are looking at ways of making the entrance process fair so that private tutoring of someone who might then hit a dead end because they have no innate talent will not help and access will be open to all if they have ability. By contrast, the Labour woman seemed keen to point out that only 3% of pupils at Grammars qualified for free meals. I'm guessing that when you look at where grammar schools are presently located, that's not really surprising?
The location of the Grammar schools in Bexley is a good example regarding this last point. Compare the north of the borough with the south.
I find it frustrating that in my town there are three specialist schools for kids that drop out of mainstream education and have behaviour problems, but no specialist schools for academically gifted children.
Or specialist doctors for very healthy people - or specialist job centres for people who have no difficulty finding work - or special subsidised buses for people who have cars.
False equivalence. Good pedagogy means children ought to be taught at a level that challenges them.
OK point taken!
But I still don't really see why teaching the 10 - 20% most gifted children needs to be done in a segregated specialist environment. By all means put them together for lessons and challenge them but do we really need to build completely different schools to achieve this?
On the other hand it seems to me that children who have dropped out with behavioural problems would benefit from a different environment - almost by definition.
Having worked in both kinds of schools, I agree that you do not need to separate children into two different schools to ensure that the brightest achieve their potential.
Grammars solve a different kind of problem, a problem that no one wants to talk about but is a far more pervasive problem; that those who fail to get into grammar schools (where they exist) are written off as failures by themselves, their parents, society and their peers. Of course, when I mean 'solve', I mean they solve this problem for the children who get into the grammar schools.
Teachers have an uphill battle from day one because the child already has the mindset of not being good enough, when in fact plenty of them have huge potential. Bad behaviour is largely a result of lack of engagement from both the pupil and the parents, but it is nearly impossible to get someone engaged into a topic that they have no aptitude for or interest in. For a lot of the most troubled students, this is nearly all of the classical academic subjects, which for schools are the most important because they are the subjects they are ranked on and what Ofsted will look into. This means that so-called 'soft options' where these children should excel are pushed to the sidelines and not given nearly enough contact time. This means a child will be doing 4-5 hours a week in a subject they will never achieve higher than a D grade in and 1 hour a week in a 'soft' subject that, if given proper support, they could achieve an A in. The ridiculousness of it is the ranking system prefers to produces students who achieve Ds and Es across the board in maths, English, science and humanities, as opposed to getting Cs and Bs in vocational and practical subjects.
Selective schooling is not a bad thing; having two different classes of school where society perceives one as better than the other and then testing purely on academic ability is a bad thing. But selective schooling should only be done if it is down to infrastructure or personnel restrictions, not because one school is the 'good school' and one school is the 'bad school'. That is not a selective schooling problem, that is a problem of parents accepting that it is OK for a substandard school to run in their area, and to pass on these perceptions to their children. Also, that current guidelines are automatically biased against supporting students who would excel in vocational as opposed to academic subjects.
Ideally a teacher ought to encounter every kid and as a starting point assume every one has unlimited 'potential'. If said teacher meets kids already labelled by dint of tests or what school they're in, it might make them modify their interaction with a kid inappropriately. Their is also a problem as alluded to above regarding curriculum headachy. Hard and soft subjects, easy and difficult ones are inappropriately stratified. To get an A* in GCSE Art, Music, Dance or Drama for example a student needs to get 97%. Ninety seven fecking percent. These boundaries go down the grades, yet an A* in Mathematics has a much lower threshold. Next time someone says they got a 'B' in Drama it might well be worth remembering how downright difficult that was to achieve, and how much hard work went into it. The solution to Educational problems seems to me to be about the teacher pupil dynamic when the classroom door closes and the lesson begins, not about the name of the school.
Ideally a teacher ought to encounter every kid and as a starting point assume every one has unlimited 'potential'. If said teacher meets kids already labelled by dint of tests or what school they're in, it might make them modify their interaction with a kid inappropriately. Their is also a problem as alluded to above regarding curriculum headachy. Hard and soft subjects, easy and difficult ones are inappropriately stratified. To get an A* in GCSE Art, Music, Dance or Drama for example a student needs to get 97%. Ninety seven fecking percent. These boundaries go down the grades, yet an A* in Mathematics has a much lower threshold. Next time someone says they got a 'B' in Drama it might well be worth remembering how downright difficult that was to achieve, and how much hard work went into it. The solution to Educational problems seems to me to be about the teacher pupil dynamic when the classroom door closes and the lesson begins, not about the name of the school.
I couldn't disagree more, although I have a feeling I'm reading this wrong.
Do you mean the dynamic is fundamentally tainted because of your earliest points regarding labeling of kids and the stratification of subjects? If so then yes I agree.
Personal tutors one-to-one are expensive but there are clubs - there is one run on Kings Hill - that are about £15 a week for an hour and that will teach them the verbal and non-verbal reasoning, the latter of which is the one that kids will never understand without being shown.
What ever you think of the system it is unrealistic to think that even the brightest kids will pass without any exam technique or that the academically challenged can pass with all the coaching in the world.
My son took it and I have to say that it was the most stressful year I have had as a parent. The pressure on the kids is immense and I don't, personally, think they are old enough for it. However, if that's the system as a parent you don't have much chance really do you?
I went to Dartford Grammar (I'm early 30s) and was lucky enough to get in without tutoring or much effort. The school was great but produced robots. I saw a lot of kids struggle with the pressure not only put on by themselves but also by their parents. Going to a grammar school is not the epitome of education, I believe the same is true of university. Some of my most successful friends have applied knowledge outside of what is considered an intellectual career and show balance in life. Those that were most successful at school still hold that record high but most have failed somewhat in life(their opinion), whether that's on a career or personal level. All people learn at a different rate and at different times. I personally left at AS level as I had no aspirations to go to university as I wasn't ready for further education, my parents understood my decision. I entered into a career that I now have much success in. I digress, I don't think grammar schools are bad, I think they are very good, but the pressure that comes with it for some children is wrong and it needs to be carefully managed. I won't push my children to go to grammar school but feel privileged that if my children did hold them aspirations or had shown them that I could afford to tutor them from an early age to build up a thorough but rounded approach to schooling and examination. Although I didn't have this I feel that some help along the way eases pressure. The last minute cram from tutoring is a recipe for disaster, tutoring should start slowly at 8/9 in my opinion and although children can be pushed a little, they are still that, children.
Goverments always put the cart before the horse. All schools should be uniformly excellent, sadly the government still can't manage this. Its easier to ideologically bash grammar schools than address the failures of the education system.
It makes me angry that so many kids are cheated out of their education. I see it all the time in the RAF. Bright people let down by feckless parenting and poor schools having to be salvaged by the armed forces
Of course when parents get their child into the school they want - grammar or not, they are not bothered about the nearby failing school. And the parents who are happy for their kids to go to that school are not bothered by definition. Fiish made a good point about Grammar schools, we really shouldn't be labelling kids as successes or failures at such a young age, when the difference can sometimes be a few percentage points in an exam! Of course children of mixed abilities can be taught in the same school. My son would be considered bright, but we were happy for him not to complete a special exam and try to get into a stuck up school in the next town. Likewise I was happy for him not to go to a local school which has a reputation as a failing school! He went to a local school which has a range of abilities in its pupils - I had only one question I wanted answering when I went to look at the school. How many pupils went to Oxbridge last year? Now that may sound a bit arrogant, but the reason I asked was not because I hope my son goes to Oxbridge, but to go to one of those universities you need to have had a good education, and won't have been slowed down by your school.
My son is sitting his GCSEs this term. I am very happy with the choice we made. You can get a good education without having grammar schools. I have never had to challenge or fight the school. Good for me, but if we were forced to go to a school that had lower standards, we would be fighting to improve them. That is the simple truth. If MPs sons and daughters have to go to the same school as everybody else, they would make sure all schools were of the right standard. Parents that cared would do the same. Standards would rise across the board, because we wouldn't let them not!
All these people on about social mobility, should be making the passionate arguments about the whole bloody education system! Grammar schools are stupid and won't help, but the problem runs far deeper!
really interested in this thread as my wife is very keen to tutor our oldest (9) for 11 plus but the cost is ridiculous and I thought were were quite well off
Is tutoring really worth it?
We have been quoted 300 a month
Tutoring will teach your child the technic required for the 11+, which imo is a big thing.
We've been fortunate as my daughters Mum is Head of Year 6 at the same school. She's been spending an hour with her one night a week for the last 18 months working on the sort of questions which would come up so as she's prepared. When my daughter has been coming to me at weekends, she's been in the habit of bringing practice papers with her and she'd do one, maybe two straight after breakfast on a Saturday. Tutoring really doesnt have to cost the earth. As long as you're prepared to put in some time and effort with your kids...and you understand the questions yourself of course.
Having said that, I was shocked at one of the papers she brought home a few weeks ago. English comprehension. Read a page of text and then answer questions on it. Simple you would think. I'm not joking, I done A-Level English Literature back in the day and some of this text left me scratching my head. I'm convinced now that if I had my time again now, I would fail!
The good news is she says she felt the 11+ went ok yesterday. She's sitting the local Grammar entrance test tomorrow too. Then the stress levels will reduce. Her Mum has been tearing her hair out over the holidays as my daughter has seemed to have picked up my 'cant be arsed its the holidays' gene and has not wanted to practice without a tantrum for the last 6 weeks, preferring to Face Time her friends, making up dance routines or practicing her Gymnastics. Its that age I guess!
I feel sorry for her today as this is her first day of actually being taught by her Mum lol. I would never want to be that child in class.
I remember getting some 11+ books for my daughter about 4 weeks before she was due to take hers, I sat her down to do them, when the time was up I checked the answers. She got about 95% right of the questions she answered correct, however she had only answered about 2/3 of the questions. We found a local tutor for her, in truth, it was too late for her. She failed by 2 pts, she wasn't too bothered, and her recent GSCEs results were great. She has known what she wants to do since she was very young (palaeontologist), she knows what she needs as A levels results to go to Uni and I believe she she will gets these.
Failing the 11+ is not the end of the world, she never thought it was, only me.
How much is spent by government per child in grammar school? How does that compare to the cost per child in a comp?
I'm guessing that cost correlates reasonably closely to number and quality of teachers, class size and other factors that might affect a child's education.
Each Local Authority is funded differently and the playing field is uneven. For Example, the guaranteed unit of funding for a Greenwich pupil is £6k. In Bexley, it's £4.6k and in Kent, it's £4.3k. All the money is washed through the LA's funding formula and this churns out a budget share. Because the Bexley and Kent grammar schools have high levels of attainment and low levels of deprivation, they get a lower unit of funding than a non-selective school who have low levels of attainment and high levels of deprivation. When they introduce national formula funding (fairer funding), schools budgets across the country will increase at the expense of the inner London schools. I think Bexley schools and Kent schools will be marginally better off.
Ideally a teacher ought to encounter every kid and as a starting point assume every one has unlimited 'potential'. If said teacher meets kids already labelled by dint of tests or what school they're in, it might make them modify their interaction with a kid inappropriately. Their is also a problem as alluded to above regarding curriculum headachy. Hard and soft subjects, easy and difficult ones are inappropriately stratified. To get an A* in GCSE Art, Music, Dance or Drama for example a student needs to get 97%. Ninety seven fecking percent. These boundaries go down the grades, yet an A* in Mathematics has a much lower threshold. Next time someone says they got a 'B' in Drama it might well be worth remembering how downright difficult that was to achieve, and how much hard work went into it. The solution to Educational problems seems to me to be about the teacher pupil dynamic when the classroom door closes and the lesson begins, not about the name of the school.
I couldn't disagree more, although I have a feeling I'm reading this wrong.
Do you mean the dynamic is fundamentally tainted because of your earliest points regarding labeling of kids and the stratification of subjects? If so then yes I agree.
What I mean is that the quality of the lessons, the teaching within those lessons, is the most significant aspect of schooling. It is the quality of teaching and learning, in the environment that it takes place, that matters more than anything else.
Ideally a teacher ought to encounter every kid and as a starting point assume every one has unlimited 'potential'. If said teacher meets kids already labelled by dint of tests or what school they're in, it might make them modify their interaction with a kid inappropriately. Their is also a problem as alluded to above regarding curriculum headachy. Hard and soft subjects, easy and difficult ones are inappropriately stratified. To get an A* in GCSE Art, Music, Dance or Drama for example a student needs to get 97%. Ninety seven fecking percent. These boundaries go down the grades, yet an A* in Mathematics has a much lower threshold. Next time someone says they got a 'B' in Drama it might well be worth remembering how downright difficult that was to achieve, and how much hard work went into it. The solution to Educational problems seems to me to be about the teacher pupil dynamic when the classroom door closes and the lesson begins, not about the name of the school.
I couldn't disagree more, although I have a feeling I'm reading this wrong.
Do you mean the dynamic is fundamentally tainted because of your earliest points regarding labeling of kids and the stratification of subjects? If so then yes I agree.
What I mean is that the quality of the lessons, the teaching within those lessons, is the most significant aspect of schooling. It is the quality of teaching and learning, in the environment that it takes place, that matters more than anything else.
Well true I guess. Sorry, I think I read your previous post as all of the current problems could be solved by having quality teaching. And in a way it could be, but quality teaching can only happen in schools where teachers are supported and given the time and resources necessary to achieve what is expected of them. The children also need to be in the right mindset too though and even the best teacher cannot be expected to teach a child who is totally disengaged thanks to their parents and their social environment.
Ideally a teacher ought to encounter every kid and as a starting point assume every one has unlimited 'potential'. If said teacher meets kids already labelled by dint of tests or what school they're in, it might make them modify their interaction with a kid inappropriately. Their is also a problem as alluded to above regarding curriculum headachy. Hard and soft subjects, easy and difficult ones are inappropriately stratified. To get an A* in GCSE Art, Music, Dance or Drama for example a student needs to get 97%. Ninety seven fecking percent. These boundaries go down the grades, yet an A* in Mathematics has a much lower threshold. Next time someone says they got a 'B' in Drama it might well be worth remembering how downright difficult that was to achieve, and how much hard work went into it. The solution to Educational problems seems to me to be about the teacher pupil dynamic when the classroom door closes and the lesson begins, not about the name of the school.
I couldn't disagree more, although I have a feeling I'm reading this wrong.
Do you mean the dynamic is fundamentally tainted because of your earliest points regarding labeling of kids and the stratification of subjects? If so then yes I agree.
What I mean is that the quality of the lessons, the teaching within those lessons, is the most significant aspect of schooling. It is the quality of teaching and learning, in the environment that it takes place, that matters more than anything else.
Well true I guess. Sorry, I think I read your previous post as all of the current problems could be solved by having quality teaching. And in a way it could be, but quality teaching can only happen in schools where teachers are supported and given the time and resources necessary to achieve what is expected of them. The children also need to be in the right mindset too though and even the best teacher cannot be expected to teach a child who is totally disengaged thanks to their parents and their social environment.
Thanks for your response.
What I am trying to say I suppose is that the current debate is skewed towards looking at the issue from the top down rather than from the bottom up.
It is within the intimacy of a classroom that routes for solutions ought to be sought. It is within the classroom that resources can be assessed, support for teachers can be judged, needs can be identified.
The clumsy example that springs to mind right now is the idea of giving each student a tablet computer to work on. From the top down it looks a good idea, generous, modern, sort of obvious really, an example to show off to others.
However from the bottom up, the teacher and her pupils, they might prefer a smaller class size, a classroom assistant, access to a counsellor, or day trips.
To what extent are educational reforms led by the intimate requirements of day to day lessons?
Today there is much talk of names of schools, be they Faith schools, Grammar Schools, Academies, ones linked with Universities and so forth. It all sounds so very grand and sweeping, but the only significance is when those reforms manifest themselves in lessons, it is the lessons that come first, and the outcomes that come second.
To call a school a Grammar school and therefore assume the issue of pupil engagement will be addressed, and outcome will automatically be beneficial for a community (and this is certainly not what you're doing) misses the point. Indeed the 'right mindset' is a compelling concept within a lesson and is often a very challenging expectation.
Lessons are populated by kids who are what they are, not necessarily who the teacher would prefer, and dealing with that reality is a good starting point for meaningful education.
I find it frustrating that in my town there are three specialist schools for kids that drop out of mainstream education and have behaviour problems, but no specialist schools for academically gifted children.
Or specialist doctors for very healthy people - or specialist job centres for people who have no difficulty finding work - or special subsidised buses for people who have cars.
I fully expect it's possible for a child to end up in non-mainstream education due to behavioural and/or emotional issues from spending 7 hours a day somewhere that isn't pushing them to the maximum of their ability though. Boredom isn't very good for the wellbeing of anyone.
Ideally a teacher ought to encounter every kid and as a starting point assume every one has unlimited 'potential'. If said teacher meets kids already labelled by dint of tests or what school they're in, it might make them modify their interaction with a kid inappropriately. Their is also a problem as alluded to above regarding curriculum headachy. Hard and soft subjects, easy and difficult ones are inappropriately stratified. To get an A* in GCSE Art, Music, Dance or Drama for example a student needs to get 97%. Ninety seven fecking percent. These boundaries go down the grades, yet an A* in Mathematics has a much lower threshold. Next time someone says they got a 'B' in Drama it might well be worth remembering how downright difficult that was to achieve, and how much hard work went into it. The solution to Educational problems seems to me to be about the teacher pupil dynamic when the classroom door closes and the lesson begins, not about the name of the school.
I couldn't disagree more, although I have a feeling I'm reading this wrong.
Do you mean the dynamic is fundamentally tainted because of your earliest points regarding labeling of kids and the stratification of subjects? If so then yes I agree.
What I mean is that the quality of the lessons, the teaching within those lessons, is the most significant aspect of schooling. It is the quality of teaching and learning, in the environment that it takes place, that matters more than anything else.
This.
I was bored silly at grammar school, teaching was crap, which made me lazy, didn't really work, got mediocre grades apart from English and left as soon as I could. One of only two in the sixth year, me and my best friend, that didn't go to Uni. Envied my mates at Bloomfield and Woolwich Poly who could weld metal and make bookcases. Your education should fit your aptitude and what you want to do in life. Instead of being an archaeologist I became a frigging pensions manager.
The idea that everyone should be educated to go to Uni is part of the problem. There should be schools specialising in Arts, science and classics all with equal validity.
There wouldn't be an issue about kids being failures at 11 if the 11 plus included making a bookcase and soldering an electrical circuit to assess your aptitude, NOT "intelligence".
really interested in this thread as my wife is very keen to tutor our oldest (9) for 11 plus but the cost is ridiculous and I thought were were quite well off
Is tutoring really worth it?
We have been quoted 300 a month
Tutoring will teach your child the technic required for the 11+, which imo is a big thing.
We've been fortunate as my daughters Mum is Head of Year 6 at the same school. She's been spending an hour with her one night a week for the last 18 months working on the sort of questions which would come up so as she's prepared. When my daughter has been coming to me at weekends, she's been in the habit of bringing practice papers with her and she'd do one, maybe two straight after breakfast on a Saturday. Tutoring really doesnt have to cost the earth. As long as you're prepared to put in some time and effort with your kids...and you understand the questions yourself of course.
Having said that, I was shocked at one of the papers she brought home a few weeks ago. English comprehension. Read a page of text and then answer questions on it. Simple you would think. I'm not joking, I done A-Level English Literature back in the day and some of this text left me scratching my head. I'm convinced now that if I had my time again now, I would fail!
The good news is she says she felt the 11+ went ok yesterday. She's sitting the local Grammar entrance test tomorrow too. Then the stress levels will reduce. Her Mum has been tearing her hair out over the holidays as my daughter has seemed to have picked up my 'cant be arsed its the holidays' gene and has not wanted to practice without a tantrum for the last 6 weeks, preferring to Face Time her friends, making up dance routines or practicing her Gymnastics. Its that age I guess!
I feel sorry for her today as this is her first day of actually being taught by her Mum lol. I would never want to be that child in class.
I remember getting some 11+ books for my daughter about 4 weeks before she was due to take hers, I sat her down to do them, when the time was up I checked the answers. She got about 95% right of the questions she answered correct, however she had only answered about 2/3 of the questions. We found a local tutor for her, in truth, it was too late for her. She failed by 2 pts, she wasn't too bothered, and her recent GSCEs results were great. She has known what she wants to do since she was very young (palaeontologist), she knows what she needs as A levels results to go to Uni and I believe she she will gets these.
Failing the 11+ is not the end of the world, she never thought it was, only me.
I totally agree with you. The 11+ is not the be all and end all, far from it. I've told my daughter that too. I honestly think it is borderline to whether she passes or not and I really dont think it will be a disaster if she doesn't pass. Neither myself or my ex-wife/her Mum have felt comfortable with putting her under any kind of pressure because I really don't think a 10 year old benefits from that. Perhaps I'm being far too protective but its noticable in anything she does. She's been doing brilliantly at Gymnastics on the Kent/SE circuit when she's relaxed but as soon as she knows she's under any pressure, she really doesn't like it. Same with cricket in the garden, same with playing Mario cart. Extreme examples I know but thats the way I see it.
As long as she enjoys her time at school and enjoys the environment, she'll thrive at whatever school she ends up going to and she'll end up getting a lot more out of school than I ever did.
The biggest scandal in UK education for me is the existence of state-funded religious schools. How a relatively secular country like ours has ended up in this situation is absurd (compare to France for example).
The biggest scandal in UK education for me is the existence of state-funded religious schools. How a relatively secular country like ours has ended up in this situation is absurd (compare to France for example).
Absolutely.
Dis-establishing the CoE and kicking the bishops out of the HoL would be a good start!
Comments
I was also surprised to hear that schools care more about the SATS results in year 6 rather than the 11+. No idea why though, I usually zone out when teacher talk starts.
More recently, my oldest friend, who has just retired from being a grocery delivery driver for Sainsbury's was telling me about his son. He went to Hurstmere in Sidcup (which I think is now an academy?) was seen as having some potential but was a troublemaker who did not enjoy school. Nonetheless, he somehow got transferred to Chis & Sid GS at sixth form level and went on to university. He's now an actuary for Aviva.
Oh, the Govt. education woman this morning on Breakfast TV says they are looking at ways of making the entrance process fair so that private tutoring of someone who might then hit a dead end because they have no innate talent will not help and access will be open to all if they have ability. By contrast, the Labour woman seemed keen to point out that only 3% of pupils at Grammars qualified for free meals. I'm guessing that when you look at where grammar schools are presently located, that's not really surprising?
It makes me angry that so many kids are cheated out of their education. I see it all the time in the RAF. Bright people let down by feckless parenting and poor schools having to be salvaged by the armed forces
"We all know Labour don't believe in selection by ability. They chose Jeremy Corbyn as leader."
It is harsh and radical, but the solution is not being able to choose your school - get rid of all selective options - private, faith etc... All schools should have a mixed ability intake. Then the good parents instead of fighting to keep their kids away, fight and demand improved standards within the local school they are given. The rest would sort itself out around that driver.
Also, if a child has no medical reason for non engagement and disruption, parents should face detentions and hassle. A penalty for having kids and not bringing them up properly which might put a few off!
But I still don't really see why teaching the 10 - 20% most gifted children needs to be done in a segregated specialist environment. By all means put them together for lessons and challenge them but do we really need to build completely different schools to achieve this?
On the other hand it seems to me that children who have dropped out with behavioural problems would benefit from a different environment - almost by definition.
Having said that, I was shocked at one of the papers she brought home a few weeks ago. English comprehension. Read a page of text and then answer questions on it. Simple you would think. I'm not joking, I done A-Level English Literature back in the day and some of this text left me scratching my head. I'm convinced now that if I had my time again now, I would fail!
The good news is she says she felt the 11+ went ok yesterday. She's sitting the local Grammar entrance test tomorrow too. Then the stress levels will reduce. Her Mum has been tearing her hair out over the holidays as my daughter has seemed to have picked up my 'cant be arsed its the holidays' gene and has not wanted to practice without a tantrum for the last 6 weeks, preferring to Face Time her friends, making up dance routines or practicing her Gymnastics. Its that age I guess!
I feel sorry for her today as this is her first day of actually being taught by her Mum lol. I would never want to be that child in class.
Grammars solve a different kind of problem, a problem that no one wants to talk about but is a far more pervasive problem; that those who fail to get into grammar schools (where they exist) are written off as failures by themselves, their parents, society and their peers. Of course, when I mean 'solve', I mean they solve this problem for the children who get into the grammar schools.
Teachers have an uphill battle from day one because the child already has the mindset of not being good enough, when in fact plenty of them have huge potential. Bad behaviour is largely a result of lack of engagement from both the pupil and the parents, but it is nearly impossible to get someone engaged into a topic that they have no aptitude for or interest in. For a lot of the most troubled students, this is nearly all of the classical academic subjects, which for schools are the most important because they are the subjects they are ranked on and what Ofsted will look into. This means that so-called 'soft options' where these children should excel are pushed to the sidelines and not given nearly enough contact time. This means a child will be doing 4-5 hours a week in a subject they will never achieve higher than a D grade in and 1 hour a week in a 'soft' subject that, if given proper support, they could achieve an A in. The ridiculousness of it is the ranking system prefers to produces students who achieve Ds and Es across the board in maths, English, science and humanities, as opposed to getting Cs and Bs in vocational and practical subjects.
Selective schooling is not a bad thing; having two different classes of school where society perceives one as better than the other and then testing purely on academic ability is a bad thing. But selective schooling should only be done if it is down to infrastructure or personnel restrictions, not because one school is the 'good school' and one school is the 'bad school'. That is not a selective schooling problem, that is a problem of parents accepting that it is OK for a substandard school to run in their area, and to pass on these perceptions to their children. Also, that current guidelines are automatically biased against supporting students who would excel in vocational as opposed to academic subjects.
If said teacher meets kids already labelled by dint of tests or what school they're in, it might make them modify their interaction with a kid inappropriately.
Their is also a problem as alluded to above regarding curriculum headachy. Hard and soft subjects, easy and difficult ones are inappropriately stratified. To get an A* in GCSE Art, Music, Dance or Drama for example a student needs to get 97%. Ninety seven fecking percent. These boundaries go down the grades, yet an A* in Mathematics has a much lower threshold.
Next time someone says they got a 'B' in Drama it might well be worth remembering how downright difficult that was to achieve, and how much hard work went into it.
The solution to Educational problems seems to me to be about the teacher pupil dynamic when the classroom door closes and the lesson begins, not about the name of the school.
Do you mean the dynamic is fundamentally tainted because of your earliest points regarding labeling of kids and the stratification of subjects? If so then yes I agree.
What ever you think of the system it is unrealistic to think that even the brightest kids will pass without any exam technique or that the academically challenged can pass with all the coaching in the world.
My son took it and I have to say that it was the most stressful year I have had as a parent. The pressure on the kids is immense and I don't, personally, think they are old enough for it. However, if that's the system as a parent you don't have much chance really do you?
I went to Dartford Grammar (I'm early 30s) and was lucky enough to get in without tutoring or much effort. The school was great but produced robots. I saw a lot of kids struggle with the pressure not only put on by themselves but also by their parents. Going to a grammar school is not the epitome of education, I believe the same is true of university. Some of my most successful friends have applied knowledge outside of what is considered an intellectual career and show balance in life. Those that were most successful at school still hold that record high but most have failed somewhat in life(their opinion), whether that's on a career or personal level. All people learn at a different rate and at different times. I personally left at AS level as I had no aspirations to go to university as I wasn't ready for further education, my parents understood my decision. I entered into a career that I now have much success in. I digress, I don't think grammar schools are bad, I think they are very good, but the pressure that comes with it for some children is wrong and it needs to be carefully managed. I won't push my children to go to grammar school but feel privileged that if my children did hold them aspirations or had shown them that I could afford to tutor them from an early age to build up a thorough but rounded approach to schooling and examination. Although I didn't have this I feel that some help along the way eases pressure. The last minute cram from tutoring is a recipe for disaster, tutoring should start slowly at 8/9 in my opinion and although children can be pushed a little, they are still that, children.
schools, we really shouldn't be labelling kids as successes or failures at such a young age, when the difference can sometimes be a few percentage points in an exam! Of course children of mixed abilities can be taught in the same school. My son would be considered bright, but we were happy for him not to complete a special exam and try to get into a stuck up school in the next town. Likewise I was happy for him not to go to a local school which has a reputation as a failing school! He went to a local school which has a range of abilities in its pupils - I had only one question I wanted answering when I went to look at the school. How many pupils went to Oxbridge last year? Now that may sound a bit arrogant, but the reason I asked was not because I hope my son goes to Oxbridge, but to go to one of those universities you need to have had a good education, and won't have been slowed down by your school.
My son is sitting his GCSEs this term. I am very happy with the choice we made. You can get a good education without having grammar schools. I have never had to challenge or fight the school. Good for me, but if we were forced to go to a school that had lower standards, we would be fighting to improve them. That is the simple truth. If MPs sons and daughters have to go to the same school as everybody else, they would make sure all schools were of the right standard. Parents that cared would do the same. Standards would rise across the board, because we wouldn't let them not!
All these people on about social mobility, should be making the passionate arguments about the whole bloody education system! Grammar schools are stupid and won't help, but the problem runs far deeper!
Failing the 11+ is not the end of the world, she never thought it was, only me.
What I am trying to say I suppose is that the current debate is skewed towards looking at the issue from the top down rather than from the bottom up.
It is within the intimacy of a classroom that routes for solutions ought to be sought. It is within the classroom that resources can be assessed, support for teachers can be judged, needs can be identified.
The clumsy example that springs to mind right now is the idea of giving each student a tablet computer to work on. From the top down it looks a good idea, generous, modern, sort of obvious really, an example to show off to others.
However from the bottom up, the teacher and her pupils, they might prefer a smaller class size, a classroom assistant, access to a counsellor, or day trips.
To what extent are educational reforms led by the intimate requirements of day to day lessons?
Today there is much talk of names of schools, be they Faith schools, Grammar Schools, Academies, ones linked with Universities and so forth. It all sounds so very grand and sweeping, but the only significance is when those reforms manifest themselves in lessons, it is the lessons that come first, and the outcomes that come second.
To call a school a Grammar school and therefore assume the issue of pupil engagement will be addressed, and outcome will automatically be beneficial for a community (and this is certainly not what you're doing) misses the point. Indeed the 'right mindset' is a compelling concept within a lesson and is often a very challenging expectation.
Lessons are populated by kids who are what they are, not necessarily who the teacher would prefer, and dealing with that reality is a good starting point for meaningful education.
I was bored silly at grammar school, teaching was crap, which made me lazy, didn't really work, got mediocre grades apart from English and left as soon as I could. One of only two in the sixth year, me and my best friend, that didn't go to Uni. Envied my mates at Bloomfield and Woolwich Poly who could weld metal and make bookcases. Your education should fit your aptitude and what you want to do in life. Instead of being an archaeologist I became a frigging pensions manager.
The idea that everyone should be educated to go to Uni is part of the problem. There should be schools specialising in Arts, science and classics all with equal validity.
There wouldn't be an issue about kids being failures at 11 if the 11 plus included making a bookcase and soldering an electrical circuit to assess your aptitude, NOT "intelligence".
As long as she enjoys her time at school and enjoys the environment, she'll thrive at whatever school she ends up going to and she'll end up getting a lot more out of school than I ever did.
Dis-establishing the CoE and kicking the bishops out of the HoL would be a good start!