Tutored?

capers123 · Post by **capers123** » Fri May 18, 2007 8:01 am

Sayed wrote:And before anyone says anything, my first hand experience just coming out of a comp. b****x does it. If it did do anything, I was worse off!

I'm sure you're right. Round my area however, a lot of parents don't agree with grammar education, so send their brighter children to the local comps, most of which have streaming anyway. One school is particularly proud of the support that it gives to both the Special Needs & Gifted & Talented kids (and just because they're SEN, doesn't mean they can't be G&T at the same time).

interested mum · Post by **interested mum** » Fri May 18, 2007 9:36 am

I agree with all of capers123's sentiments. She sounds like an ideal person to have on an appeal board. There ARE children in Glos who are genuinely not tutored, who have absolutely no idea of the sort of parents who post on this kind of forum, and I entirely agree that, should they score higher or the same as a tutored child, then they should receive the place. Good for you capers123 for sticking to your principles. All my three children have obtained grammar school places, I practised the tests with them but did not send them to a private tutor and had no idea of the extent to which you can tutor via this website (eg lists of words used, leaving out 'hard' questions etc) and am very glad I did not find it beforehand as would have been hysterical by now!

Sayed · Post by **Sayed** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:32 pm

interested mum tell me about it. I had a bunch of old papers and threw them in front of my sister and told her to get on with it.

capers123, that does indeed sound promising, I just wish schools would stick to this. Some of my subject classes were streamed but poorly done as the class had a mix of the bright and those on the boundary which after GCSE results day, many in the top stream achieved less than those in the middle set. However, this may have just been how my school operated.

sj355 · Post by **sj355** » Fri May 18, 2007 4:14 pm

Dear Capers123,

a)My opinion is that one should ever ask questions that can not be verified.

b)Even if they could be verified what is the point here? You penalise the ones that did not marginally pass but were tutored, when obviously there is no penalty for the ones that marginally did pass and had a tutor!

c) Of course it is a well known fact that I do not believe that tutoring can inflate marks in an entry exam, unless the entry exam itself is limited in what it tests for and fails to detect academic ability. We usually blame the surgeon when his patient dies on the table, not the patient himself! Of course the most frequent case is that it is neither's fault.

Bronco · Post by **Bronco** » Fri May 18, 2007 4:33 pm

Caper123, I am not sure of where you have the idea that I am a tutor, indeed I am a poorly paid public servant and the only interest I have in education is that of my own children.

============================================
I suppose I'd best shut up, Bronco, but before I go, please answer me two questions: 1 place available in the school - pass mark 225, entry mark 235. 2 children, both score 230. Both ill the night before the exam. One tutored for a year before hand, the other definitely not. Which is the brighter child, and which should get the place? I know which I would choose.

And secondly, as you have been an 11+ tutor for the last 15 years, can you be said to be unbiased - at least I have no financial interest in this.
=============================================

I am not prepared to answer your first question as I am not qualified to do so, but I still find the notion that you use tutoring/non-tutoring as a selection criteria is quite distasteful.[/quote]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri May 18, 2007 4:58 pm

I think that some of the people posting on this thread should remember that appeal panels are not looking at "punishing" people for being tutored, or indeed anything else. At a non-qualification hearing they are faced with a number of candidates who have sat the exams and have not scored highly enough to be considered suitable either for a particular grammar school or any grammar at all.

On the face of it these candidates should not get grammar places. You could argue that there is no technical need for an appeal system at all. Brutal, but there it is. There has to be a cut-off somewhere.

However, it is recognised that there might be cases where the results just don't reflect a candidate's ability. It is these candidates the appeal system is trying to pick up. They are looking for extenuating circumstances to explain the shortfall. Not just "well he was close to passing". If a child has not had even basic familiarisation practice (and, yes, away from this forum that really does happen) that could be an extenuating factor. Why should it not be considered? It is true that parents could lie. They could lie about granny dying too couldn't they? I think that it is up to the panel to decide if they can rely on the information presented to them. And, no, I don't think most parents would lie. Shame on any of you who would!

sj355 · Post by **sj355** » Fri May 18, 2007 5:21 pm

However, it is recognised that there might be cases where the results just don't reflect a candidate's ability. It is these candidates the appeal system is trying to pick up. They are looking for extenuating circumstances to explain the shortfall. Not just "well he was close to passing". If a child has not had even basic familiarisation practice (and, yes, away from this forum that really does happen) that could be an extenuating factor. Why should it not be considered? It is true that parents could lie. They could lie about granny dying too couldn't they? I think that it is up to the panel to decide if they can rely on the information presented to them. And, no, I don't think most parents would lie. Shame on any of you who would!

There is a lot of merit in the above paragraph and I will not deny that. However the cruel fact of life is that the death of a grandparent can be verified by a death certificate. Anything that can not be verified by documentary evidence is not accepted at the Uni. I expect that a similar approach is followed at school appeals. A hamster's death, however regretable and painful it may prove for a child, can not be verified and hence it is not accepted. A "I-am-not-being-tutored" status equally can not be verified. Unless lie detector machines are introduced into the process I think that an appeal panel should only rely on strictly verifiable facts, because yes some parents do lie. Welcome to the real world!

Sally-Anne · Post by **Sally-Anne** » Fri May 18, 2007 5:22 pm

Funny you should mention that Guest - I was just reading this article in today's Times about the things that people are doing to get into a good state school:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 805706.ece

I feel fairly sure that a bit of that goes on in Bucks as well.

Sally-Anne

sj355 · Post by **sj355** » Fri May 18, 2007 5:32 pm

It happens though. One of the kids in my son's school has given a false address and has gained entry into a very very good partially selective school that takes a big chunk of students by proximity. Personally I think it it is wrong, but they are desperate as their kid is a very poor pupil and they think this school would push their child into ahieving higher. More generally however I disagree with partial selection because it uses different measures and criteria for accepting its students

Funny you should mention that Guest - I was just reading this article in today's Times about the things that people are doing to get into a good state school:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 805706.ece

I feel fairly sure that a fair bit of that goes on in Bucks as well.

Sally-Anne[/quote]

Bo Peep · Post by **Bo Peep** » Fri May 18, 2007 5:35 pm

How about this then...

http://www.newstatesman.com/200603060022

Tutored?

Non tutored children