On lots of different posts, people refer to 'intensive tutoring'. what is the definition of this? 1 hour per week for 1 year? 2 years? 2 hours per week?
Just curious to see what people's views on this are?
I don't mind admitting my son is having a tutor for 1 hour per week and gets homework as well. He's in year 5, and has just started. The Kent test is taken in early September so he'll have been tutored for a year in total.
I also realised recently that I feel slightly guilty at going down the tutoring route as I never thought I would. I know he's fairly bright but I don't want him to jeopardise my son's chances and want him to sit the exam relaxed and prepared.
It has been a rather hot topic on 'tutoring' again. In this country, some people see the word TUTORING as a negative image (some posts on this forum has already indicated this), I do not understand why. If you look at the other countries in the Far East, it is quite a common practice for most children. It is not because they are not bright, but a bright child may not be good at everything. Therefore, parents are quite happy to hire a tutor to help their children if needed.
In my view, if tutoring ( or what everyou call it) is needed for a child's performance to be improved. Then go for it! It is sometimes difficult to define what intensive tutoring is e.g A child may take much longer to learn English if he/ she is not strong in literacy.
Again, it is up to the parents who decide whether tutoring is required for the child for the 11+. It is not right that parents should feel guilty if their child needs teaching/ tutoring for the prep.
That said, it would be a burden/ pressure if a child is put in a position that he/ she is exhausted after doing excessive amount of work ( may be another defintion here) day after day. Surely, it depends on the judgement of indivdual parent to observe the signs of a 'BURN OUT' child. May not be easy though