can state primary education plus tutoring = equivalent of private?

[wheelsonthebus]

we planned to privately educate dc, but dh lost his job and now dc is going to a state primary - downgraded from good to satisfactory by ofsted . if we have dc tutored from yr 1 say, can we get up to standard of a private school(with a view to moving dc if our finances improve - possibly at 7, but definitely at 11). Can an hour a week really achieve anything? Anyone done this from early on? Interested in any views. I now work f/t so doing lots of stuff with dc after school myself is not really an option (except at weekends). I'd be interested to know when tutoring shd really start. My friend said her primary school gets great league table results but that's because most parents pay tutors. Also; what do most people get tutors for - maths or English or both?

What was that "BSC PGCE" about? Sorry!

Not for the first time on this thread, Greeny, you've been making untrue statements.

You wouldn't happen to be a state school teacher would you?

Have come to this thread late and haven't read it all, but just wanted to respond to a point made by Quatro that private schools produce "brighter students (the selective ones anyway)" Um... is that not because they only accept brighter students in the first place? It's not as if they're taking low ability students and creating geniuses, is it?

Also agree that "better" qualifications does not mean an ability to teach. I've taught with people with firsts from Oxbridge/Russell Group universities who were very intelligent, but not necessarily any better at communicating their ideas, and similarly, brilliant teachers whose degrees were more average.

When I was first applying for teaching jobs, I applied to one private school (one only) and didn't get the job - it was given to someone with no QTS as they were cheaper.

AspasiaManos could that be because their target clientèle are more likely to be seduced by the university than the actual qualification?

Quattrocento
YOU may have established that from what you have found in your local area. If that is the case it is NOT representative of all areas at all.

There are good and bad state and private schools, with different strengths and weaknesses, that is what I have established from my assessment.

Quattrocento what statement is untrue?

Sorry. When was that established exactly?

I dont actually think that better qualifications = better teachers.

I am not a teacher, but I did train as a nurse. During my training I met many nurses and I can wholeheartedly say that best nurse did not equal most highly trained. Some of the best nurses I worked with took the deploma route rather than the degree route, which in my personal opinion does not create a better nurse.

I can imagine that teaching is the same.

Nurturing, imagination, creativeness, are not things that can be measured in degree level or university attended.

Teaching is as much down to personality and intuition

Yes mrz - I agree. The only reason for listing the university attended by the teachers is to impress the "customers".

MANATEE sums it up - "There are good and bad state and private schools, with different strengths and weaknesses."

Greensleeves, I don't need to post anything because you've said it all. Will stop reading and let my blood pressure go back down.

I agree that better qualified does not necessarily equal better, teamcullen - which is why I was careful to say better qualified.

And Kemble, I didn't say that independent schools produce brighter children. How could they? I said that the selective schools provide brighter children. I think that one of the most important influences on children is their peer group. Therefore the brighter and more interested the peer group, the better.

And mrsz - if I were to compile a list I would be here all night.

I have to disagree with daisydancer when she says - "After all, we all have access to a superb state sector" - when it is blatantly untrue.

Some people have access to a superb state sector - if it was all of us then the private sector would be even smaller (I doubt it would ever disappear).

I must assume that you can't back up the claim then Quattrocento ??

Aargggh. Who has "proved" that people teaching in private schools have better qualifications? People who went to a private school themselves teach in one, and vice versa - in the majority of cases. Having the right accent is more important that the class of degree.

There seems to be a bit of semantic ferfuffle around the word "qualified"

there is a huge difference between academically qualified and qualified as a teacher.

When people say "qualified teacher" this implies that the person has a valid teaching qualification and is trained in how to do the job.

Otherwise I could qualify as a nursery nurse, get a job as a mechanic in a disreputable yeard and call myself a "qualified mechanic"

Private schools often employ unqualified teachers. These individuals have no professional training and no place teaching in a school - a real school, that is.

Quattro, you are guilty of a fallacious argument by implying that what Greensleeves ARGUES is shown to be false by what she does/might do. It's called an argument ad hominem. Amazing I should know that, as a product of a state school.

I'm not even sure if you mean a "better" degree or a degree from a "better" university.

Do you think parents choose private school because they believe their children would not reach their full potential in the state sector. I wonder sometimes if it is a confidence thing. You know how you read that what goes in the home counts for a lot especially in primary school and perhaps a lot of parents fear they won't or can't provide in the home what is required.

I worry about this sometimes as I don't take them to museums and the like and to be honest I hate homework (always have) but I reassure myself that we are a non-stop talking family and we read lots. Comes round to the original question can a tutor do at home what some of us parents feel we can't quite deliver?

I don't have access to a superb state sector. It is mediocre at best, and then you have to work hard to access this mediocrity.

I live in a reasonably affluent area, although in a not so affluent pocket, and I am seriously underwhelmed at the state school offerings.

I know nothing of these free laptops and extensive extra-curricular activities. The schools are just happy to stumble through the regular day.

I know parents who sent their children to private schools because they knew they wouldn't get into grammar school even with coaching. I know other parents who sent their child to a private school simply for "bragging rights" and I know other parents who sent their children to private schools because they felt that was the best place for their child.

mrz,

I thought you were a teacher. Surely you can discern between subjects and establishments.

Even I know that there is a hierarchy of subjects and universities.

My question was to Quattrocento as to what she discerned as better.

vinblanc - I think you are being overly simplistic with your assessment of "hierarchy..." For example, I went to a "better" university (according to, say, the Times Good University Guide) than DH, but the university DH went to had an excellent reputation for the subject he studied. I doubt the average parent has this kind of specific knowledge to hand, and therefore think your comment to mrz was a bit out of order.

A hierarchy of subjects and universities?

Of course there isn't. The distinctions are an amalgam of social snobbery, misconception and deliberate propaganda.

People who pay for schooling are much more likely to be attracted to the appearance of prestige rather than looking properly at different courses and choosing the best one for the student in question. Lots of private school pupils end up in Oxbridge purely because they can - and it suits the school's image and their parents' shallow aspirations for them to do so. Often it isn't the best choice, nor do the "top universities" offer the best courses in all subjects for all students.

And as for a hierarchy of subjects - well, that IS just snobbery and ignorance.

Ah Iggi, I was hoping to get away with that one! Okay guilty

mrsz - just to please you, I will list all the inaccuracies spouted by Greeny on this thread. It's wearisome. I don't like discussions conducted at this sort of level because it just isn't debate really. It's the equivalent of my posting that all state school children smell and have asbos. Whereas the reality is that only a very small proportion do!

1. "I wouldn't let my children within twenty miles of some of the inarticulate antisocial charlatans I've come across teaching in private schools - they would be laughed out of the interview in any decent state school" STATES THAT PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS (WHO AS WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE SUTTON TRUST RESEARCH HAVE BETTER QUALIFICATIONS THAT STATE SCHOOL TEACHERS) ARE CHARLATANS - NOT TRUE

1. "and bullying in many private schools is of terrifying proportions." SCAREMONGERING AND NOT TRUE - BULLYING IS TAKEN RATHER MORE SERIOUSLY IN SCHOOLS WHERE REPUTATIONS DIRECTLY MATTER TO INCOME.

1. "private education is a shoddy poorly-regulated hotchpotch - a tombola in which you gamble with your child's potential in order to improve your social self-image" AGAIN NOT TRUE, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT CHILDREN OF THE SAME ABILITY TEND TO DO BETTER IN INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS THAN THEY WOULD IN STATE.

1. "orivate (SIC) schools are businesses, not educational facilities" ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE - THE VAST VAST MAJORITY OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANISATIONS DESIGNED TO FURTHER EDUCATION.

1. "there is a tendency to prioritise children's achievements and aptitudes towards vote-winning photo-opportunity crap like playing for county cricket teams and building toilets in Venezuela during the school hols" ERM, NO, THE VAST MAJORITY OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS HAVE TO PRODUCE BETTER EXAM RESULTS THAN STATE SCHOOLS. WHICH THEY DO. THAT'S THEIR PRIORITY.

1. "yes, private school pupils tend to have a nice veneer of social polish and bags of exterior confidence - that's what private schools offer and that is what parents pay for - because they care more about appearances than real education" ERM, NO, AGAIN. PARENTS OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL CHILDREN TEND ON THE WHOLE TO HAVE HAD MORE EDUCATION THAN AVERAGE AND TEND ON THE WHOLE TO CARE ABOUT EDUCATION. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT TWICE.

1. "We've certainly established that private shcools don't have to employ qualified teachers at all though, and often employ completely unqualified teachers, with disastrous consequences for the children." SCAREMONGERING AND NOT TRUE. I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN UNQUALIFIED TEACHER AT MY DCS SCHOOLS.

drosophila It was totally a confidence issue with me sending my dc's to a private school. Not in terms of academic stuff, I am fine with that, but at the time of choosing, their Dad was living with us and was an alcoholic and I worried about things socially. I thought that if home life was fucked up then school life needn't be. But what actually happened was that I sorted out the home stuff when I became single, and the school screwed up big style!!!
God, my logic sounds insane really.