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?

I'm a state school teacher and have ideological issues with private education. Why would it trouble you any more than any of my other ideological or political opinions. The only way it influences my teaching is in my choice of workplace. I don't have problems with individuals who use private schools. I just think it would be more desirable for them not to do so. I think it is the wrong thing to do. I know some fab private schools. My issues are not personal.

Good Luck vinblanc

I'm a teacher and don't have any issues (or isshoos either) with parents right to choose what I do take issue with is the assertion that one is automatically better than the other.

Oh well I didnt think my pointing out the benefits of state school education (IMO) would make any difference to DCs academic acheivments .

Quattro- I hope I havent upset you by disagreing with some of your comments and sharing personal opinions. (even though I was sometimes made out to be a lier.)

Nah, of course you didn't upset me. You were debating tc. I like a debate

oh thats good

BTW Quattro (if you're still reading...) - I would say that qualifications are a somewhat blunt tool for determining subject knowledge and subject understanding, which are really key in secondary teaching I think. I am well qualified, but my PhD is a bit of an irrelevance. It does enable me to speak about science research with some degree of first hand knowledge, which is useful, but is unnecessary in terms of subject knowledge. Another student on PGCE course who was equally 'well qualified' in fact failed, because he couldn't teach - also key in secondary teaching! However, I have also worked with colleagues whose understanding of science and scientific method has left me rather speechless. And not in admiration. And they all have degrees of course, which is rather scary. But you wouldn't necessarily be able to pick them out of an alma mater roll call.

My first HoD shortlisted using A level results. He said it was the best way of picking the brightest applicants. I wonder if that would work now...

Secure and wide-ranging - absolutely. Very, very important at both A level and below IMO. But a PhD is anything but wide-ranging of course. And although I work really, really hard to get my specialist subject into at least one lesson a year, it is a bit of a stretch

I am however truly gobsmacked at how some of my colleagues have managed to leave university with a degree in a science subject. I don't know if you could make generalisations based on which university they went to though.

I would think most schools hire teachers based on experience not qualifications, and as so many have teaching qualifications it is a bit odd that anyone without would get a teaching job anywhere.

COST!!!!

I completely fail to see the relevance of a 'good" degree in a primary school teacher. A teaching qualification, yes. But I don't expect my year 3 child's teacher to be a maths graduate! Or to have a Russell Group 2:1. What would that tell me about his or her ability to engage, teach and care for my child?

Well yes there is that, I suppose

On the point of whether or not independent schools are in the majority not-for-profit organisations, I googled for some data without success and sent a query off to Isis.

What I can link to, is this which is interesting and also comments that the majority of independent schools have charitable status (ie they cannot make a profit for their owners - they have to be owned by a charitable trust)

I was indeed surprised by the assertions that the majority of schools existed to make profit for their owners - because this is not my experience. I do know there are one or two companies trying to make a profit out of education but they must get undercut by charitable trust schools. The main area that I am aware of where people try to make a profit is in the small prep schools. Which are frequently struggling.

I agree seeker, but equally, I'm not sure that a GCSE grade C in maths (which is all that is currently required) is quite enough for a primary teacher either. I know there are moves afoot to raise that requirement at some point in the future.

quattro, for what it's worth I have read research papers that state most independent schools are not for profit.

Snorkle and Quattro, you're right. Most independent schools are not for profit. There are occasional examples of independent schools that are.

You either have charitable status where no profit is allowed or you are not a charitable organisation and the compensation is that you are allowed to make a profit. Most independent schools are charitable organisations.

vinblanc do you realise you are coming across as a snob and a bully? And my interest in the topic under discussion is precisely nil

I may be wrong but I don't think Independent Schools Charitable Status has any link to profit. To claim Charitable status the school must offer bursaries and subsidised places which allows them big tax reductions including an 80% reduction in their business rates.

"Tax breaks are on average worth £225 per child a year to independent schools, or just under 2.5 per cent of their annual turnover. If a school were to lose these, fees would rise. Two years ago Eton received tax breaks of about £700,000, the equivalent of £500 for each of its 1,400 pupils. Turnover was reportedly about £30 million and the school claimed to be giving back £2 million a year. "

Looking at those figures, it would appear that Eton would be better off if they were not a charity and therefore would not need to provide bursaries.

Wow one of my kids puked last night and I missed the blow up. I agree vinblanc was coming accross as a snob and a bully. I would like to dedicate this talk to all those who have a similar attitue.

And there is no VAT charged on school fees. That would certainly add to the cost.

Not impressed by that Alain de Botton lecture. I can't be bothereed to waste 16 minutes of my life listening again but he seems to be saying that trying but failing messes with your self-esteem, so it's better to be fatalistic and not worry about trying to succeed in the first place.
Robert the Bruce must be spinning in his grave.

Where did VAT come into this?

I'm afraid the Robert the Bruce story was a myth created /borrowed by Sir Walter Scott and has no truth in history. The original version by Hume of Godscroft accredited Sir James Douglas with the spider revelation who passed on his observation to Bruce...

School fees do not attract VAT and some people think they should (Fabian Society). www.lse.ac.uk/collections/financeDivision/vatGuidelinesAndTaxation/vatGuidelines.htm Back in 2007 there was a suggestion that thisw might happen www.sfs-group.co.uk/news-industry-18392039-vat_suggested_for_private_school_fees.htm.

Wonder if it ever will.