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?

"do you think you are getting value for money?"

It is extremely hard/impossible to quantify really. I don't deny it has cost an arm & a leg, but my children are happy and well adjusted (& frankly gorgeous, but I would say that!) and have had the life of riley while achieving far in excess of what I ever considered possible. Maybe they'd be the same if they'd been through the local state schools, you never can tell, but it's been my pleasure to indulge them.

one of the things it's difficult to gauge from a bald list of extra-curricular activities is the standard on offer and how often they take place. On paper, my dc's "outstanding" primary has a choir, football, cricket, volleyball, basketball, dance, gymnastics clubs, peripatetic music tuition in violin, guitar, clarinet from y4, takes part in various sports competitions etc etc, does French and children go to France for day trip in y4

However, when you look at the provision in detail it's either extremely poor or simply doesn't happen on a regular enough basis.

The choir is frankly laughable, the kids can barely sing in tune and hardly above a whisper and yet they're praised to the skies by the (admittedly lovely and very inclusive) head. (I know what can be achieved with a school choir as my primary school choir was constantly on TV/making records etc and the school had a bog-standard intake but the choir was well-trained and anything other than excellence wasn't tolerated)

The clubs only happen for a few weeks at a time and for very restricted age groups and I'd be amazed if any child learned enough to be able to compete with children at the local prep schools. There is a gym club for example, but the gym squad which occasionally competes in interschool competitions is made up entirely from children who go to the local gymnastics club. Ditto the swimming squad which is made up of local swimming club members.

My kids have allegedly done French (for years in ds2's case and yet he can only count to 20 and say his name - his French vocab book had three pages completed by the end of y4)

In many ways it's a very good school, and my dc have been/are mostly very happy there. However I'd say the biggest difference between my dc's school and the schools attended by some of their friends is that it's so bloody inclusive that all sense of striving for excellence has fallen by the wayside. If kids realise they're going to get praised heaped upon them for what is frankly a mediocre effort, then why on earth would most try any harder?

"The choir is frankly laughable, the kids can barely sing in tune and hardly above a whisper and yet they're praised to the skies by the (admittedly lovely and very inclusive) head."
Bet they absolutely love it, though. What is wrong with praising them to the skies for their gusto and enthusiasm? And what is more important - singing in tune or having a ball doing it?
I am absolutely shit at Singstar. But if someone told me I couldn't do it unless I was a Grade 8 classical singer, then I wouldn't want to play their poncy game. But when I do (admittedly would have to have had a bit to drink....) I love it!

"anything other than excellence wasn't tolerated)"
Sounds like a barrel of laughs. These are primary school children, fgs.

you've completely misunderstood me Feenie - in my primary we loved singing in the choir - it was a real aspiration to be in the choir or to sing a solo and partly we enjoyed it so much because we knew we were doing something really well - something most of the kids in the choir had no innate talent for either, so it wasn't just creaming off the top few

that's my point - you don't have to be naturally good at something in order to be able to do it well - and what's wrong with realising that sometimes you have to work hard at things?

the choir at my dc's school however displays no gusto or enthusiasm - I wouldn't mind so much if they did - they just shuffle onto the stage, stare at their shoes, mumble through half the words and then get told they're fantastic, brilliant, wonderful

and enjoying Singstar yet being rubbish at singing is completely different to performing in front of an audience ...

I don't think I have misunderstood you, actually.
When I was a child, my primary school had 2 choirs. The big choir was for anyone at all to join, as long as they wanted to sing. The small choir you had to be selected for, and we sung with the main choir but provided harmonies, etc.

What's wrong with both? And a reward for the love of doing something because you love doing it?

Your choir doesn't sound any fun. I maintain that that is the most important factor. They are children.

I agree Feenie. I play the violin rather badly but I love it and it makes me happy. My family are happy to tolerate my lack of excellence. Children should be encouraged to participate because they enjoy things not just because they are good at them.

BTW our primary school also shares music teachers with the private schools in our area. Their lessons cost thirty pounds for half an hour and ours are fourty pounds a term. The standard is the same the teachers tell me. Excellent value for money.

I'm glad you said that mimsum.

It's a balance. I do believe that it is healthy and good for children to be encouraged, but it is also healthy and good for them to strive to be the best they can.

They have a choir at each of my DC's primary schools. The children need to pass an audition to get in, and a reasonable proportion fail. Once in, it involves practising for three lunchtimes a week and one evening a week in the run up to competitions and festivals etc. Lots of fun and cameraderie, and there are at least half a dozen of these external festivals a year and they compete with other choirs.

Naturally enough, being well drilled and with a first class choir leader etc they beat all the state school choirs hollow.

But it is an uneasy feeling, because a fair proportion of the children can't get into the choirs, and therefore miss out.

It's the same story with all the sports. My DD sobbed her heart out when she didn't get into the first hockey team and had to be content with the second.

The answer is of course, as feenie says, to have both sorts of choirs. That's what happens at my dcs school (there are in fact at least 4 choirs for all ages and abilities and 3 orchestras etc.) It's still disappointing for a child if they don't get into the better ones, but they can still participate & have fun. It gives everyone the chance to participate at a level appropriate to their ability rather than a one size fits all approach.

Goodness me! I feel sorry for the kids who are not good at English, Maths, Sports and now singing, talk about being set up for a fall.

Its no wonder why there are so many disscussions on putting too much pressure on kids if there are 2, 3, or 4 choirs to get through to feel like you have reached the top.

Maybe the schools say the other choirs are for fun. Right. Try telling that to the kids in band 4 choir!

To return to the original question ,i think whether primary plus tutoring equals independent very much depends on the type of independent and also what you are hoping to gain from the independent school.

Academically I am sure that unless you are aiming for one of the really competative and highly academic seniors then you should be able to acheive this but most people in independent schools do value the extras ,whether or not people outside that system believe that to be justified , and thiose can be difficuly to mirror,but I am sure with lots of parental imput it can be done.

It frustrates me that these threads always descend into a competition,I don't know whether my children will do better in one system or another ,we are lucky (and I do realise that),that we have been able to choose the school we felt best suited to our childs needs ,it happens to be independent and we are very happy with it.

I do agree with Feenie,why is it that people associate working hard at something and enjoying the success as not being fun.If a choir shuffle on an off and look at their feet then their not having fun are they.We underestimate childrens ability to work hard at something and appreciate the satisfaction and joy which comes from savouring their resulting success.

Teamcullen, Giving children lots of opportunities is more about finding the activities they really enjoy doing than setting them up for a fall (or it should be). Better to be able to try things out than do nothing or do it badly and grudgingly for fear of failure. The choirs of course aren't tiered 1-4, but geared towards different ages, sexes even sometimes, and types of music. As it happens, there's only one 'audition only' choir, and not all the children aspire to it in any case as it's more formal (robed) and has a more onerous practice schedule. Children do of course fail the audition sometimes (including one of mine) & it's far less of an issue than you seem to think.

I'm sorry if this has come over as a 'my school's better than yours' thread on my account, music is something our school does very well & I'm keen to share best practice ideas - there's plenty about the school that is irritating too and 'better' is not only subjective but different for different children too. I've been heartened to read that there are increasing numbers of state schools offering a very good range of extra curriculars as I think they're important.

State primaries and local authorities generally offer a range of activities and the shorter hours at state primaries allow children to do activities outside school such as swimming and brownies.

I would see it as an advantage doing things outside school. I do remember as a child that sometimes school can seem a bit too dominant and it was a pleasure to go off and do swimming with other children or youth groups organised by our church.

As for music provision, the Country Youth Orchestras tend to be the best local orchestras (better than most school orchestras) and take the best musicians from the county, whether state or privately educated. Again, as a teenager, it was great to mix with people from different schools and - because I grew up in a rural area - our orchestral courses were all residential and therefore great fun.

However, much as it is good for schools to offer activities, children do need to be left to play and follow their own interests.

I notice that my dd (age 5) does loads of writing and reading when left to her own devices and I think that tutoring would probably discourage her own ambitions and limit her imagination. Remember, that children learn despite their parents...they are designed to learn, which is why they can talk aged 2. If I had more time I would love to have kept my girls at home for longer to watch them learn by their own. However, work means we had to opt into the school system. Plus, I think that I do need a break from my children!

wheels on the bus - you get Bond papers from Waterstones, or Amazon. English, maths and non-verbal reasoning.

I think that one of the advantages that private primary education has over state is that they have a much broader curriculum, rather than the focus on core subjects and then only dipping into other subjects.

A tutor is usually there to reinforce literacy and numeracy, rather than to enrich the curriculum. I'm sure that the majority of primary schools will deliver a good standard of literacy and numeracy to the average child. You can be diligent about reading to your child and listening to your child read (even private school parents have to do this).

As a family, you are in a better position to enrich the curriculum yourselves. For example, you can enhance the history and geography topics by reading together, watching documentaries and visiting museums. You may have facilities for team sports in your community, particularly football, rugby and cricket for both girls and boys.

Bottom line is that I don't think a tutor is the way to replicate a private education. You have to put in the effort in lieu of throwing money at the situation.

There seems to be lots of discussion about which schools do the most activities, but no discussion as to whether this is actually a good thing. My dd is 5 and absolutely exhausted by end of school day (short one, five mins walk away). Maybe it's my own laziness but I want her to do a bit of unstructured play, a run round the park, maybe one playdate a week etc. Personally, I'm appalled when I hear that some schools have a day of 8.30 to 6pm with a journey on top.
I know this will change as they get older, but I think there's more to this than plenty of activities = good.

Barnsberry-every child is different. My DD has always been up for as many activities as possible, she has never found school tiring, my own laziness puts a cap on what she can do. However because her school offers many lunchtime groups (they have a long lunch break)she gets to do a lot of things and play with friends etc.

Wheels, have you thought of doing something like Kumon? DD (entering year 2 in Sept.) started Kumon maths (there is also an english program) about 6 months ago. She has definitely really improved in her mental addition. I think she will move into subtraction soon. I am definitely a fan of the program. I felt the school was not pushing her to her potential so I signed her up for Kumon. DS will be in reception this year and I'm going to sign him up for the English program.

We will probably do more formal tutoring later on. But, for now, 10-15 minutes a day fits the schedule and leaves time for some fun activities like dance/swimming/tennis.

Vinblanc- How is the curriculum in private education broader?

It has already been discussed that many state schools offer, music, arts, languages and a wide varity of sports.

So therefore I take it means in the way lessons are taught, ie; taking the teaching out of the classroom or bringing lessons to life.

teamcullen,

I don't think state schools generally teach peripheral subjects with the same vigour that they do Englishliteracy and Mathematicsnumeracy. Private schools often have specialist teachers for many subjects, and offer a top level of music and sports provision.

You understand it when you see it in action.

Have you seen some state schools in action. Very broad curriculum in ours.

Hey teamcullen have you tried fabreeze on that blazer

Vinblanc what are those peripheral subjects though ?

Well, if your state school has a quality broad curriculum, and is good at basic skills, then htere is little value from hiring a tutor.

A tutor is unlikely to give you that 'je ne sais quoi' (nor are they likely to broaden the curriculum).

We also have specialist teachers (only in KS2 at the moment) for English, Maths, Science, French, ICT, & Music we introduced it about 3 years ago and have found it very effective for raising standards.

fridayschild - thanks. will look into it.

athene - yes i have thought about kumon, tho' it seems to get a v mixed response on this website from other mums. Interested to know you rate it however. how much does it cost?

I don't really see the advantage of teaching at great depth in primary school, particularly in KS1. At an early age (up to around Y4) children's brains aren't developed sufficiently to have 'knowledge and understanding'. They may know loads of facts about things, but they can't really understand those facts in an abstract way in order to extrapolate cause and effect. THis often makes the KS1 and EY teacher wonder why they get up in the morning!

We must share facts with children, and encourage them to ask that important question 'why?' - then we need to answer that question together.

From a very early age the children should shape the curriculum and choose, together with the teacher, what they want to learn. A skilful teacher can broaden any learning, with support from the children. For instance our Roman topic, whilst being under the 'history' umbrella, involved DT (making museums), literacy (writing museum pamphlets), science (setting a burglar alarm on the musuem), art (painting copies of frescoes for the walls and making artifacts).

This is what worries me about single subject teaching, as it constricts the opportunity for creativity. As Feenie has said before, these are only primary school children, after all. They learn by getting involved and having ownership over their learning, not by being drilled in history, geography, etc, etc.