BBC Radio 4 Programme

Sally-Anne · Post by **Sally-Anne** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:47 pm

What a surprise.

coolmum123 · Post by **coolmum123** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:30 pm

i am going to go O/T at a real tangent here so apologies in advance but the thing that makes me fume (literally steam coming out of ears!) is how parents who do give extra help to their kids in the form of tution or pay for their kids to go private are practically villified for doing so!!!
Every parent wants to do best for their kids and if that means that some parents sacrifice somethings in order to pay for some form of education why is that so wrong? Surely if they have earned their money it's up to them how they spend it!!!

zorro · Post by **zorro** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:51 pm

Hear hear!
Better spending it on your children's education and future rather than expensive holidays and big houses.

zorro · Post by **zorro** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:52 pm

P.S. Where's Tipsy?

Post by **mitasol** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:29 pm

She may have popped off to Vanuatu.

AB · Post by AB » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:33 pm

Or she might just have popped!

Or her wings fell off!

Unreserved and a Multitude of Apologies for going totally off topic myself.

Loopyloulou · Post by **Loopyloulou** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:37 pm

There is more detail at http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/progin ... /thu.shtml
It does annoy me when people criticise the wealthy for sending their children to grammar schools - after all the rich pay their taxes too, in fact a lot more than most! I just don't see the problem.

coolmum123 · Post by **coolmum123** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:27 pm

An d also being rich is relative really. As a percentage there are very few people / families who are so 'rich' that they can afford to spend spend spend all the time! Most people who are deemed to be 'rich' really are not in that category. It's not just 'rich' people who send their kids to private school or give them tuition! It's people who work hard and have a different set of priorities!!!

Here endeth the lecture.!!!

Sorry I had to get all this off my chest - I just get so wound up reading / hearing people being criticised for wanting their kids to do well.

woodyrocks · Post by **woodyrocks** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:43 pm

Anyone online manage to catch it?

I found it really interesting and shall be following it again next week when they talk to the children that did get into grammers. Of the three children the programme focused on, 2 (M+F) were pro' tutored and the third was tutored by her Mother. Only the pro tutored boy passed (127/124). The pro' tutored girl's (108/124) parents mentioned appealing but said they would not hesitate to pro' tutor again in the future.

The parent that chose to tutor her DD said she would get a pro' in for her younger daughter. She was sad that she had to go down that route but that it really does give the children a level playing field to start from.

To summarise, ALL the parents were, by the end anyway, for pro' tutoring.

I had butterflies just listening to it thinking about having to go through that with Woody in a while and also felt slight guilt at the thought of putting her through that as I listened to the girls speaking about being sick with stress and shaking all over and parents talking about withdrawn and subdued children feeling like failures for not making the grade and the fear of being the only one at their school that didn't get in

Sally-Anne · Post by **Sally-Anne** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:46 pm

Well, I am mulling it over, but I think it was a sort-of interesting programme after all. (Well, not exactly riveting when you've been around the system as long as I have, but at least I wasn't smashing the radio against the wall in rage!

)

It certainly didn't prove the point about tutoring making the difference though.

:: Naomi, St. Mary's School, tutored for 9 months by "a highly respected and well-known tutor" (and I know exactly who that must be) at a cost of Â£1,800. Did not qualify - scored 114 and 106.

:: Jonathan, Brushwood, tutored for 2 years at a cost of around Â£2000, passed with 127 (the second score wasn't given).

:: Kathleen, Brushwood, - home-tutored for 2 months, did not qualify, but appears to be within range of an Appeal (no scores given).

St. Mary's School Amersham is probably somewhat superior to Brushwood School Chesham, although I haven't looked at the latest SATS, so Naomi probably had a slight advantage in terms of reading, vocabulary and maths.

There was no mention of children who are not tutored at all because their parents do not have either the ability or funds to do so, and they are the people that Andrew Bomford's researcher was never going to find if s/he couldn't manage to get beyond the "end of the Met Line".

To correct a mistake that the presenter made twice:

Schools are only allowed to take the children through 3 practice papers.

(Later) Schools are allowed to give "2 or 3" practice papers.

The second statement contradicts the first, and neither is true. Bucks schools are required to take the children through a familiarisation paper which introduces the children to the techniques required for the test, followed by the 3 practice papers. Heads have to sign a form to confirm that this has all been done.

And by the way, Naomi is in luck - the Misbourne is a considerably superior Upper School to many in the area.

Sally-Anne

P.S. Sorry woodyrocks, you have it wrong - Naomi and Jonathan were definitely both professionally tutored. I was making notes as the programme went along. Such dedication to duty.