Tutors - what's the going rate?(54 Posts)
I know it will vary hugely, but just to get some kind of range - for a Y4 child after school, what would you pay (as a parent) or charge (as a tutor) per hour, in Home Counties?
Also in central London and my tutors are excellent and charge £25 an hour. One (science) is a qualified secondary school teacher and working part time. Some do still seem to think it is a fair rate for the job. The other is a student who previously worked as a teaching assistant so knows the syllabus etc.
On the website I use, I see inexperienced students advertising for pupils for £35-£40 an hour or more.
In central london one massively oversubscribed very experienced tutor charges £60 an hour.... others locally seem to charge £35-40
school back in my day, I can't say anyone was that enthused about Macbeth, but we all had to read the whole play, we had no choice.
We were 13/14 - and given the weekend to read it, then lessons started on the Monday, head-down, and woe betide anyone who hadn't read it.
Missbopeep. I too am a highly qualified teacher. I don't tutor because I am too busy and live in a remote area so would just be making parents pay to cover for my own inadequacies, but I have done so in the past.
I have been teaching for 20+ years.
However, I would disagree with you about the need for a qualified teacher as a tutor. I am not sure what part of my vague, waffly, mad Cambridge PGCE prepared me for tutoring - if there was anything, I slept through that bit. What I do have, is experience. But why can't a tutor without a PGCE have that too? Also, let's face it, even A Levels are just not that hard if you have a degree in the subject and can look things up. Past papers are plentiful, exam technique has changed very little over the years and anyone with a degree knows how to be a successful learner.
OP - good luck to you and to all tutors - good on you. I find small numbers very intensive and really hard work. Give me 20+ teenagers any day! And here in my bit of Scotland we do teach the WHOLE text....
My dd1 (year 8) is currently reading macbeth. They are studying it at school but won't be reading more than a few scenes, so she has decided to read the whole thing herself. It's great that she has such enthusiasm but it's such a shame that not all of her class will bother. Most of them will watch the film in class (not even the proper version - a 'modernised' version with only the very basic storyline).
Apparently, according to my relative who teachers English - they need to access Macbeth in 3 different ways...except none of those 3 different ways includes actually fecking reading it
It's just a joke.
I recall when exams were real exams, and you walked into the exam room facing a 3 hour exam, with just a feckin pen and a head full of quotes.
Yes, I too was astounded when ds told me that they "don't need to read the whole play"
It's just bizarre, not to mention disappointing.
When I was a governor at a primary school I was talking to the "literacy coordinator" about English. It was not going well as I had mentioned Shirley Hughes of whom she had never heard, and then a few classics which also drew blank looks. She then puffed out her chest and demanded to know what exact qualifications I had as I wasn't a teacher .
Miss years ago, I covered an A Level English class...they'd already been studying Wuthering Heights for nearly 2 months...ten minutes into my carefully planned lesson, I realised my students were very
After a bit of questioning, I discovered that none of them knew there were actually two Cathys in the book...
I seem to recall my pithy observation of 'Your chances of getting a decent grade in your coursework will increase ten fold if you all actually bother to read the book' didn't go down too well
'tis truly shocking.
A few years ago I tutored a boy who was studying a Dickens novel for his GCSE at a very good private school as it happened- and I was shocked to hear he only had to read the first few chapters.
What is more shocking was that years ago I had read that book when I was a pupil- aged 11- 12- at grammar school where it was our class reading book.
Miss yes! I have just been told this...apparently, even the top set for English at my relative's secondary school aren't required to actually read Macbeth all the way through.
It's supposedly too taxing and they don't have enough time to read it through in class, and it's considered unfair to expect them to read it at home, so they just study pertinent bits...
This is probably welcomed by English teachers who don't come from a strong English background at A Level/university (like my relative)...but gads...it would drive me nuts to have to teach to such a standard (or lack of).
It works the other way too LaQueen- teachers who love literature find that the requirements of the exams demand a tiny fraction of their knowledge. Latterly this has meant that complete texts are rarely studied for GCSE ( deemed " too hard"), and texts set fot A level were once GCSE texts..and I could go on! Without blowing my own trumpet I find that my literature students do well because I tend to give more than they need for the exam.
soworn I absolutely agree with you, and it's why I didn't actually tutor for very long.
Although I was passionate about my subject, and probably had as good as/if not better subject knowledge than qualified teachers, I didn't know what was required of pupils to pass the exams.
I could give a pupil a far deeper, wider understanding of, say, Wuthering Heights, than they would ever be treated to in a classroom...but, then to pass the current exams they just didn't need that depth/width of knowledge.
And, it's for precisely that reason that despite DH being a gifted mathematician (Maths prize every year at his grammar school etc), and my having a very strong literacy background - and us both being graduates with good degrees - we don't tutor DD1 for the 11+, and instead pay a professional to do it.
LaQueen the fact that you know of someone who appears to be under-qualified who is a teacher in a school ( which may have occured due to teacher shortages) doesn't make it right for unqualified people to work as tutors.
I am sure you know your stuff and are a good tutor- but there are equally many, many teachers who work both as teacher and as tutors who are as well, if not more, qualified than you are.
sowornout - the exam boards have specifications available on their websites, endorsed textbooks are available from all good booksellers and there are masses of past papers, mark schemes and examiners reports available. I think anyone with a half decent brain can work out what is required from utilising all of these materials. I make damn sure I am 100% familiar with all of these. I am also a registered examiner for one of the exam boards - they don't require me to have a PGCE or to be actively teaching. They seem happy enough with my qualifications and subject knowledge. There's no reason why a parent looking for a quality tutor wouldn't be either.
Whilst maths may be slightly different (it's not my subject) I think if you are not a qualified teacher it would be very difficult to tutor GCSE or A Level students, purely because although you may know your subject you are not au fait with what the exam board require. LaQueen you sound well read, but are complaining that your relative is teaching 'to the test' and that they only know 'what is required for the curriculum'. The point is that you need to know what is required for the curriculum. Yes, it's a poor way of teaching to my mind - but if you have hired a tutor to coach your child to get the best possible grade then you do need someone who knows exactly what sort of questions will be asked, how to answer them, what examiners are looking for, etc. If you are not teaching this subject and marking coursework professionally I would imagine it is difficult to be absolutely confident that you know what the exam board require in enough depth.
South east, going rate is £35 ph for 1:1.
I charge £25 per hour for GCSE Maths tutoring. £30 per hour for A level. They come to my house (or my school classroom if it's been organised through school) though so I don't have travel time or costs to worry about. I'm in Cumbria.
Agree with Islet.
I have good O Levels and A Level grades in English, plus a good English Literature degree and some post-grad. study.
I have worked as a tutor in the past, although I only have a vague, faffy C&G 730 in Teaching (which was just very basic common sense stuff).
Having said that, my subject knowledge is far more in depth than that of a relative who is actually a qualified teacher teaching secondary school English. And, I am far, far better read than they are.
They only got a C at GCSE, didn't even take A Level English, and went on to study Meeja at a Mickey Mouse university...yet 5 years down the line they're teaching A level English Literature
Fair enough...but I know for a fact (as demonstrated by numerous conversations) that I can wipe the floor with them when it comes down to subject knowledge, breadth and depth of reading, textual analysis, conjecture...everything really.
All they do is teach to the test. They only have a working knowledge of a very limited number of texts (just the set texts, really) and they know what is required for the curriculum.
I concur absolutely that some post 16 students do not need a qualified teacher- my DD had one for A levels. Had I been able to find a teacher though ( science subject) I would have preferred that. I do agree though that there are many teachers ( and I said this 2 posts back) who are useless either in the classroom or working 1;1. But that doesn't mean all non-teachers are good tutors either- or should even try to teach.
I think it is semantics to differentiate between a tutor and teacher in the context of private tutoring. I am a teacher with QTS etc but what I do with pupils 1:1 is tutor so I am referred to as a tutor.
If anyone asked me what I did at 5pm on Mondays I'd say I tutor- not teach - or they would think I was in school.
I charge £28/hr for A-level Biology, £25 for GCSE. I am not a qualified teacher, but have a degree and Ph.D in Biology. I also taught 2nd year Undergraduate level at University. For a specialist subject at post-16 level, I would argue you don't necessarily need a qualified teacher. The students that come to me have no faith in their 'qualified' teachers and some teachers clearly don't know their subject matter in depth. My students get very good results without me having a PGCE.
In Glasgow for secondary geography. £26/hr
I never say "hey I'm a teacher" - I am not a teacher I am a tutor- they are different, and no I never feel guilty charging more than teachers who have trained to be teachers for 4 years as once more, I am not a teacher , I am a tutor.
If they want to charge £30 an hour and have the skills to be able to meet the needs of children in their area, than why aren't they charging that amount - supply and demand....
I got into tutoring by helping a friend's child to understand Y4 maths and helping them learn "smart" so that they could pass school tests rather than just get bogged down on the first question. I took him through the topics which he really didn't understand - fractions/ratios - and then some other mums asked for my help - Year 1 went like that, for an occasional bottle of wine as a thank you, then someone said "You should do this professionally" so I signed up for some OU courses, did some volunteering to help with maths at my local primary school - keeps me up to date on current methods, and my help is valued (which is worth as much as money to me) spoke to the taxman and hey ho 3 years later £30 an hour.
I'd be happy to tutor your son! Not saying I could as I too have a long waiting list- but in principle, I think there are plenty of teachers who are happy to work with children who are at state schools- most of mine are- and who are just a bit behind. But I still think you need a qualified teacher. It's like any profession- would you go to an unqualifed lawyer, doctor, counsellor etc- who SAY they can help you- to save money ( maybe). There is an assumption sometimes that just because someone speaks Englsih, can read, write and do some maths then they can be a teacher
Does it differ depending on what you want the tutor for. I think my son needs help just to keep up with his class. I am not looking at getting him to do any entrance exams or anything. It's no good me trying to help him as he just ends up screaming at me. I need someone else to do it with him. Some of the tutors I have spoken to about him seem a bit sniffy about taking on anyone who isn't going to get into somewhere very selective and make THEM look good.
I just want my son to be able to cope at the (state) secondary he will be going to.
Do you never feel slightly guilty that you are charging more than a lot of teachers who have trained for 4 years?
How did you get into tutoring?
On the basis that you are unqualified, and other tutors like me have 30+ years' experience, a degree and specialist PG training, I should be charging twice as much- surely?
I am not for one moment saying you are not a good tutor- just asking myself why I spent 4 years training when I could have just said "Hey, I'm a teacher!"
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.