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?

Actually, trickerg, according the Sutton Trust, bright pupils are not necessarily successful regardless of their educational establishment. A poor place does pull them down and prevent them for reaching their potential.

(generally speaking - there are always exceptions, especially on Mumsnet)

Ah! so statistics can only be quoted if they support your argument vinblanc sorry I didn't realise.

"I don't think selective schools (or parents of pupils) have any right to crow about fantastic results, when the children are all expected to perform to this standard. It's not a case of brilliant teaching (far from it), it's a case of working with more able children."

No crowing - I was asked for evidence - I supplied it. I could give you more, especially around the extracurricular stuff.

I think you are approaching this from the perspective of a teacher and assessing the quality of the teaching. I have made no claims about the quality of the teaching in either sector. I don't believe it's possible to assess the difference.

I've made the claim that you can do more with bright children - a claim with which you do not appear to disagree. It's also quite beneficial for said bright children to be in a school full of their peers rather than a handful in the state system who will go on to do well academically.

It is helpful to understand what the statistics refer to.

Unfortunately, the league tables themselves have influenced behaviour in schools (not the student variety, I hasten to add, but management).

By using 5 A-C as a standards, it shifted the focus on getting D students up to C, and ignored the ones who were easily in this standard. They entered students for Foundation level for a guaranteed C (maximum), rather than Higher level where they risked a D. This then knocked on into A-levels where many schools won't let you do the subject if you don't have at least a B. So you pick 'new' subjects for A-level - medya, etc.

The most stupid thing is when they pick something like ICT and decide that it is worth 4 GCSEs. I'm sorry, but it is just not. There are lots of skills and personal development, but it just simply does not trump something like French, English Lit or Chemistry.

There is a hierarchy of A-level subjects but this is not reflected in grades and points. Geography (thankfully an academic subject) has the highest number of A grades, but it is nowhere near as difficult as a Science.

The saving grace is that most employers will see through the difference and they will value a C (or even D) in Physics above many A grades.

I think that accountability in education is vitally important, but league tables are shallow and lead to a change in behaviour which is not good and does not benefit the student. I am always skeptical about league tables.

Quattrocento it is not always the case that independent school pupils are universally bright. I know parents who choose to pay for education because they know their child isn't bright enough for grammar school or even for the top set in the local comp.

vinblanc I'm not a fan of league tables but removing the results from tables still give the same picture...

mrz, independent schools cater for all abilities.

Even dim children deserve a good education, and if their parents can afford it, they can go to a school with small class sizes and nurturing teachers.

I think that at all echelons of intelligence and self-esteem, there is a market for independent schools.

God I hate the atitude that x subject is harder than y subject. It is soooo relative. My DS is a whiz at maths so he finds it easy. He can't draw to save his life so if he were to take art it would really challenge him. French for a kid with a french parent is probably easy for him/her so does not really tell you much if they got a good grade in it.

Who decides what is easy and what is hard?

Obviously a skill/talent such as art of music is going to be easier for some and harder for others. A language is going to be easier for those with significant external exposure. It is perfectly find for a student to exploit this advantage (they may well have suffered great disadvantage by moving countries so deserve some positive side).

But there are plenty of subjects that are a level playing field.

At least employers and universities can value the differences between individual subjects, even if parents don't.

I'm not saying that any A-level is easy or the grades not deserved. In applied subjects, it is very hard to get an A. However, the key thing for employers is how transferrable are the skills. Many degree courses, such as Law, will highly value indirect subjects, such as the Sciences, because they show analytical skills and problem solving. Subjects such as music show perseverance and attention to detail. Those are the kind of things that employers are looking for.

OK so here's an analogy that has just popped into my head (apologies if it is not original)

independent schools are like a 4* hotel
grammar schools are like B&Bs and
state education is like self-catering

anyone care to discuss?

Im lost in all the statisics being thrown about (maybe a cause of my -rubbish- state school education )

I just thank my lucky stars that this country thinks that all children deserve an education, free or otherwise dispite what their IQ is.

Not every child wants to leave school and go to Oxford or Cambridge. Some actually want to be plumbers, nurses, council workers, shop keepers. All jobs that keep this country running.

I would personally be happy for my Dcs to do any job that they were happy with as long as they were working and happy and confident individuals. If they want to become doctors, then great. I will support them too.

Round of applause for you teamcullen.

I'd choose self-catering every time.

You are absolutely right that not everyone should aspire to Oxbridge.

I am personally worried about the moves our country has made to make higher education available to all. It set up people for failure and huge debts, and puts undue pressure on the taxpayers to fund people to not work for 3 or 4 years.

I don't see the problem with apprenticeships and day release. It gives the combination of practical hands-on, with theory tagged on.

I think we should make much more of our craftsmen, such as Lord Linley (a carpenter) and those who restored Windsor Castle after the 1992 fire.

There are loads of MC families who, in jest, suggest that their sons should become plumbers. There are worse things that could happen to them.

thedolly

So, following your analogy, within 'self-catering' there are the smaller subsections of, say, cottage, caravan, tent.

of course, there are the top indies, which would be the 5* hotels as well.

Ithink my School is like 5* hotel which is full board

ie: Good Quality, Lots on offer, food education free, drinks holidays, music lessons are an optional extra

yes but it's not 'posh' is it teamcullen?

vinblanc as do state schools
and yes there is a place for both. But there is also a great deal of misinformation about what state schools can and do provide as obvious from posts on this thread.

as do state schools what?

By vinblanc on Sat 15-Aug-09 15:10:40
mrz, independent schools cater for all abilities.

"as so state schools"

Even dim children deserve a good education, and if their parents can afford it, they can go to a school with small class sizes and nurturing teachers.

all children deserve a good education and even if their parents can't afford it they can go to schools with nurturing teachers only the small class size is doubtful.

no Dolly
Its more like 5 Benadorm as apposed to 5 Bahamas

They do indeed, but the state sector struggles to provide, sadly.

We will have to agree to disagree with such a blanket statement vinblanc.

Do you think all us common, state school mums/teachers might convince even one private school mum that we are getting exactly what they are getting but without the £10,000 price tag

Do you really think you are getting the equivalent.

You must admit that private does offer extras, and enhancements wrt class size. You may not value the price tag, but still have to admit that a class of 16 is better than 30. That professional tennis tuition is better than the Year 3 teacher drawing the short straw. That specialist teaching from the attached senior school specialist is better that the Year 2 teacher's grade 3 piano.

It is absolutely fine not to value these things. But don't pretend they don't exist.

Private school is an 'experience' - anything else is just 'school' (maybe )