Tutoring

[Ed's mum]

Proof , yet again, that we all need to be careful how we words our posts so we cause no unintended offence.

Thank you for your invaluable information Fm.

As for tutoring, I am now hanging onto the hope that the test WAS tutor proof or we are stuffed!

[mitasol]

You completely misread the supposed tone of the message Mitisol.

Then, I do apologise.

[Farooq]

Hi all

Glad to see the forum has shaken hands and is once again united

With regards to tutoring I had an idea on the train a few days ago...I was thinking considering that a number of parents on this site may have a field which they are themselves specialists in e.g. science, english, maths etc, we could potentially set up our own tutoring group (non-profit making).
All it would need is a centre and voluntary contributions...a small class size ratio and a focus on the key skills. It's just an idea!...

Do people find personal tutoring better or in a small class size out of interest?

[newdawn]

Happy to clarify, will not try and make a joke next time!!

With regard to Ed's Mum comment I think the majority of children said that the exam format was not what they were expecting, sort of tutor-proof I guess.

[fm]

The University of Durham exam is only tutor-proof for the first year or so, then a good tutor will catch on to the skills required and act accordingly.

Very clever children who read a lot, are at a decent primary school and are attentive at school and have the confidence to tackle the unfamiliar will pass these exams without tutoring.

But the whole point of tutoring is to help children who are not in this bracket. They may not have a good school or have confidence; they may be immature; they may be quite inattentive at school. Tutoring will address some of these issues and, if the child also happens to be quite bright, she or he will pass.

[serialtester]

Another issue about tutoring is that sometimes kids are more willing to take direction/coaching/tips from someone who isn't their mum or dad - as I have recently found

[stressedaddy]

The subject of tutoring is very contentious and leads to many debates. Even at the open days for KEGS, the Heads stressed this point and the need to avoid tutoring. Until I see or read about the pros and cons from experts who have done studies on the matter, than I am in favour of tutoring. My point is based on this simple rationale:

The exams are hard and tutour proof, I agree, however, you wouldn't sit a GCSE or an A level exam without revising the subject. Granted, you have studied these subjects for two years and preparing for it. Primary school children are preparing, be it not the same material, but something similar. Tutoring will not allow you to pass the exams, but will prepare you on what to expect and how to apply logic to get to an answer. Doing papers in practice will allow the individual to think about the problem and apply a solution to it.

I like the term "coaching" more than "tutoring", as I am coaching my son on how to find solutions to the questions. Tutoring suggests that you are doing the work for them which in the case of many parents isn't true, they are more likley to be coaching their children.

Also, there is a stigam attached to thw word tutoring. To say that my son is being tutored almost implies that he is not clever and so worthy of taking the exams. We all need to prepare, even when going for a job interview.

My views for what they are worth.

[yoyo123]

Another issue about tutoring is that sometimes kids are more willing to take direction/coaching/tips from someone who isn't their mum or dad - as I have recently found

certainly the case with my 2!

stresseddaddy you make some very valid comments, I too prefer to think of it as coaching. Think of a swimmer or runner who has an inate ability, but when coached learns to hone that abilty and be more effective. Nobody says that rugby coaching is cheating.

[fm]

Oddly enough I prefer the term tutoring. I think of tutoring as teaching them things they don't already know or showing them new, better ways of doing it.

I think of coaching as just building up stamina and speed to do repetitive tests.

The good thing about the University of Durham exam is that you do teach children rather than just coach them so there is more value added. Thus, if the child doesn't achieve grammar school, you have still improved them and given them confidence for whichever school they attend.

[Milla]

there's a very sneery woman in our village who was most dismissive of my boy getting into grammar, "yes, but he was tutored," she said. What she fails to understand is that we had him tutored BECAUSE he was clever enough to get in. It's not that he got in BECAUSE he was tutored. Wrong way round. The tutoring (and I prefer that term, too, the other sounds a bit creepy, a bit hands-on, a bit grooming, squeal) is there for familiarisation once the intelligence has been established.

And the old argument (followed, for instance, by a stern, striding woman in our village who refused to have hers tutored for this very reason:) that tutoring somehow implied the need for a leg up, that they wouldn't be able to cope once there if they had "only" got in following tutoring doesn't hold water either. One feels one has to do it (albeit NOT at 5 am, NOT for hours a week, etc) not to push the children out of their natural ability zone, but to give them a chance when the indies are getting help built into the curriculum but state primary schools, at least in our area, all but refuse to acknowledge their existence.

There will, of course, always be exceptions. By tutoring, I am really meaning familiarisation. Not fair in the context of today's 11+ tests either however much one might wish it wasn't like that.