Crosswords0 min ago
2 questions re schooling
12 Answers
1. Have any of you lovely AB'ers either been to a private school, or have sent your children to one? If so then what are the advantages and dis-advantages?
2. Home tutors ( to top up existing education). Where would be the best place to find a reputable one?
TIA x
2. Home tutors ( to top up existing education). Where would be the best place to find a reputable one?
TIA x
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Smowball. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Disadvantages: Cost. Also the fact that former friends may become resentful, and bully the child who has gone from state school to private school. The private school best suited to your child may be a long way away, and your child may not be suited to boarding.
Advantages: small classes - my youngest son was in a class of only 12. Much bigger choice of subjects and sports. Lots of languages to choose from, maybe including japanese or Chinese, with possibility of exchange visits. Sports like Fives, Climbing ( school's own indoor climbing wall, for instance) Lacrosse. Usually private schools have huge playing fields. Also options for music - playing a wide range of instruments. I found teachers were much more dedicated than in state schools , much more prepared to organise after-school or vacation activities such as skiing.
And if you are class-conscious, your child will grow up with classier friends than s/he would have in a state school. A larger proportion of private school pupils reach university than state school pupils. They are better prepared, and more encouraged.
BUT it may in the past have been easier for would-be paedophiles to get employment in private schools, especially church-sponsored private schools. But we have to hope that is a thing of the past, don't we.
Advantages: small classes - my youngest son was in a class of only 12. Much bigger choice of subjects and sports. Lots of languages to choose from, maybe including japanese or Chinese, with possibility of exchange visits. Sports like Fives, Climbing ( school's own indoor climbing wall, for instance) Lacrosse. Usually private schools have huge playing fields. Also options for music - playing a wide range of instruments. I found teachers were much more dedicated than in state schools , much more prepared to organise after-school or vacation activities such as skiing.
And if you are class-conscious, your child will grow up with classier friends than s/he would have in a state school. A larger proportion of private school pupils reach university than state school pupils. They are better prepared, and more encouraged.
BUT it may in the past have been easier for would-be paedophiles to get employment in private schools, especially church-sponsored private schools. But we have to hope that is a thing of the past, don't we.
my husband went to boarding school because his parents went to cyprus on a posting. He absolutely loathed and hated it, did not thrive there, was bullied and is still (in my opinion) scarred by it despite being in his mid forties. However, i think that's more to do with the fact it was a boys only school, and he felt his parents sent him there because they didn't want him. It just wasn't the right school for him and he had no-one to tell that to.
My friend sends her daughter to a private school and spends more on that than her mortgage every year. They have super-long holidays too, so has to pay for extra childcare during the school holidays. I am firmly of the opinion that if your child is going to thrive educationally, they will do it no matter what school they go to, comprehensive or private, but that the child might not be the right fit for every school, and getting the right school is more improtant that whether you are paying for it or not.
i am also not sure that going private gives you any advantage in life - people who go to comps can become architects and doctors if that's what they want to do, and people who go to private schools can be hippie dropouts if that's what they want to do too.
Re tutors - perhaps the school will have some suggestions? Or have you tried netmums for recomendations?
My friend sends her daughter to a private school and spends more on that than her mortgage every year. They have super-long holidays too, so has to pay for extra childcare during the school holidays. I am firmly of the opinion that if your child is going to thrive educationally, they will do it no matter what school they go to, comprehensive or private, but that the child might not be the right fit for every school, and getting the right school is more improtant that whether you are paying for it or not.
i am also not sure that going private gives you any advantage in life - people who go to comps can become architects and doctors if that's what they want to do, and people who go to private schools can be hippie dropouts if that's what they want to do too.
Re tutors - perhaps the school will have some suggestions? Or have you tried netmums for recomendations?
My daughter went to private from year 5. She was doing 'ok' in the local Cof E school-but not thriving. She also had some attention problems,and as we discoverd later,mild dyslexia. We heard about a small preparatory school that was a stepping stone to the local fee paying schools,so we got her in there. She loved it-and finally thrived. That is also where she had 1-to-1 turoring and her dyslexia was diagnosed. She was then in an all girls school through year 9. She developed good discipline there in regards to homework and coursework...something I know would not have been possible in the state school. When we moved down to the West Country,she was back in State school-it was her choice. There she did well in spite of seriously going off the rails...bad company,getting in trouble,failing courses. But the discipline she'd picked up earlier helped her to do well in the end.
She had home tutors for a brief time in Year 11..it helped. Ask for recommendations from other parents,and the school.
She is now doing a Phd
She had home tutors for a brief time in Year 11..it helped. Ask for recommendations from other parents,and the school.
She is now doing a Phd
I am not considering sending him to boarding school. The 3 private schools that I am considering, although they also are boarding, ae all within 5 miles so that wouldnt be necessary. The school that he goes to currently has had an Ofsted inspection and been put into special measures, but I have been trying to move him for a while. It is a disaster. I need to something quick.
My daughter went to a private school and educationally she did better when she went to a state school for 6th form. But (and I will get lambasted for this) the advantages of the private school were;
She speaks nicely, she didn't get mixed up with rough elements, she had the opportunity to meet well off boys from the county set!
She speaks nicely, she didn't get mixed up with rough elements, she had the opportunity to meet well off boys from the county set!
Having taught a long time in state secondary comprehensive schools, with a bit of grammar school experience fitted in, I'd like with regret to echo Prudie's point. Private schools give the individual child a longer nurture time. Peer pressure is usually left unaddressed in state schools and even in decent ones a strong 'anti' culture develops among kids. Girls can feel pressured into regrettable behaviour because not to join in is to become marked out as 'a snob'.
You have the option of home-schooling your child at any point and if you are sufficiently concerned about the local school going into special measures (never a good sign) this might be a consideration for the time being.
There are a variety of agencies that provide tutors. One national franchise is Tutordoctor. For maths specialisms the Kumon centres have a good reputation.
Unfortunately sending your child to a private school doesn't protect him from bullying. You will however be guaranteed smaller classes and there will be expectations regarding doing as you're told, and there is generally less classroom disruption caused by indiscipline than in state schools.
You have the option of home-schooling your child at any point and if you are sufficiently concerned about the local school going into special measures (never a good sign) this might be a consideration for the time being.
There are a variety of agencies that provide tutors. One national franchise is Tutordoctor. For maths specialisms the Kumon centres have a good reputation.
Unfortunately sending your child to a private school doesn't protect him from bullying. You will however be guaranteed smaller classes and there will be expectations regarding doing as you're told, and there is generally less classroom disruption caused by indiscipline than in state schools.
That's certainly true, Mosaic.
The State education system on the whole (but with one or two notable exceptions) is a shambles. There are a number of reasons for this but most significant among these are:
1. It is administered by local authorities. The reason for this escapes me. There is no earthly reason why local busybodies should have anything to do with educating the nation’s children. This is especially so when you consider that many authorities are not capable of arranging for the dustbins to be emptied without making a song and dance about it. Quite why the children in Surrey should be subject to different educational policies to those in Shropshire is a mystery to me.
2. The teaching unions have, for at least forty years, had far too much say in education policy. There is no more reason to allow teachers to dictate education policy than there is to allow private soldiers an input to defence policy or train drivers to have a say in transport policy.
3. Probably most importantly State schools have to admit all comers. This means that those children who do want to take advantage of the best the school can offer (and whose parents encourage them to do so) are hindered considerably by the disinterest and disruption of those children who are only there because their attendance is compulsory..
I was fortunate enough to have been educated at a Direct Grant Grammar school. These establishments were, in my view, the finest form of State funded education ever available in England and Wales. They overcame all of the above problems:
1. They were overseen by a board of governors whose sole aim was to see that the school provided the best education it could. Funds were provided directly from central government to the school.
2. School policy was determined by the governors and enacted by the headmaster.
3. The school selected its pupils via examination and interview. Disruptive behaviour was dealt with swiftly by the headmaster and the ultimate sanction was expulsion with no right of appeal. If you misbehaved badly enough you were out and your parents had to find somewhere else for you.
Unfortunately behaving well and making the most of your education is not “cool”. It is a shame that prudie feels the need to apologise when she says of her child “…the advantages of the private school were; She speaks nicely, she didn't get mixed up with rough elements…”
Alas Direct Grant Schools are no longer an option. So my advice, Snowball, is if you can afford it pay to have your child educated privately. It is the best investment you can make in his future. His education will not be jeopardised by the whims of local councillors, he will not be subject to the dogma of the teaching unions and he will not be disrupted by children who don’t want to be in school.
The State education system on the whole (but with one or two notable exceptions) is a shambles. There are a number of reasons for this but most significant among these are:
1. It is administered by local authorities. The reason for this escapes me. There is no earthly reason why local busybodies should have anything to do with educating the nation’s children. This is especially so when you consider that many authorities are not capable of arranging for the dustbins to be emptied without making a song and dance about it. Quite why the children in Surrey should be subject to different educational policies to those in Shropshire is a mystery to me.
2. The teaching unions have, for at least forty years, had far too much say in education policy. There is no more reason to allow teachers to dictate education policy than there is to allow private soldiers an input to defence policy or train drivers to have a say in transport policy.
3. Probably most importantly State schools have to admit all comers. This means that those children who do want to take advantage of the best the school can offer (and whose parents encourage them to do so) are hindered considerably by the disinterest and disruption of those children who are only there because their attendance is compulsory..
I was fortunate enough to have been educated at a Direct Grant Grammar school. These establishments were, in my view, the finest form of State funded education ever available in England and Wales. They overcame all of the above problems:
1. They were overseen by a board of governors whose sole aim was to see that the school provided the best education it could. Funds were provided directly from central government to the school.
2. School policy was determined by the governors and enacted by the headmaster.
3. The school selected its pupils via examination and interview. Disruptive behaviour was dealt with swiftly by the headmaster and the ultimate sanction was expulsion with no right of appeal. If you misbehaved badly enough you were out and your parents had to find somewhere else for you.
Unfortunately behaving well and making the most of your education is not “cool”. It is a shame that prudie feels the need to apologise when she says of her child “…the advantages of the private school were; She speaks nicely, she didn't get mixed up with rough elements…”
Alas Direct Grant Schools are no longer an option. So my advice, Snowball, is if you can afford it pay to have your child educated privately. It is the best investment you can make in his future. His education will not be jeopardised by the whims of local councillors, he will not be subject to the dogma of the teaching unions and he will not be disrupted by children who don’t want to be in school.
I agree with a lot of your comments, New Judge, but I'd be interested for some examples of the sorts of things you mean when you say:
"The teaching unions have, for at least forty years, had far too much say in education policy. There is no more reason to allow teachers to dictate education policy than there is to allow private soldiers an input to defence policy or train drivers to have a say in transport policy. "
"The teaching unions have, for at least forty years, had far too much say in education policy. There is no more reason to allow teachers to dictate education policy than there is to allow private soldiers an input to defence policy or train drivers to have a say in transport policy. "
The manifestations of teaching unions attempting (and often succeeding) to call the tune in education policy are many and various, factor. Of course all staff associations campaign for pay and conditions of their members. After all, that’s what they’re for. However, this does not usually impinge upon the operating policy of the organisation.
Here’s just a couple of examples from the NUT’s current collection of policies where they actively oppose government polcy:
The English Baccalaureate:
“The NUT opposes the English Bacc and is promoting its own alternative to the Government’s proposals. The English Baccalaureate, introduced retrospectively, has had a devastating effect on schools, branding a large number of pupils as failures. Its introduction needs to be reviewed by the Government.”
Year One Phonics Screening Check :
“NUT members at the 2012 Annual Conference resolved to continue to oppose the Year One Phonics Screening Check The NUT advises members to continue with their usual planning and teaching in Year one. Any pressure applied to teachers to prepare pupils for the Check or ‘teach to the test’ should be resisted and reported to the NUT school representative and your local NUT division or association secretary.”
Neither of these policies have a significant impact on the pay or conditions of teachers. They are simply having, as civil servants, their work determined by government policy. The NUT has taken on itself the task of determining what is best for children. But they are not elected representatives of the people and their members‘ best interests may often be in conflict with the best interests of pupils. And so it has been for at least 40 years.
Here’s just a couple of examples from the NUT’s current collection of policies where they actively oppose government polcy:
The English Baccalaureate:
“The NUT opposes the English Bacc and is promoting its own alternative to the Government’s proposals. The English Baccalaureate, introduced retrospectively, has had a devastating effect on schools, branding a large number of pupils as failures. Its introduction needs to be reviewed by the Government.”
Year One Phonics Screening Check :
“NUT members at the 2012 Annual Conference resolved to continue to oppose the Year One Phonics Screening Check The NUT advises members to continue with their usual planning and teaching in Year one. Any pressure applied to teachers to prepare pupils for the Check or ‘teach to the test’ should be resisted and reported to the NUT school representative and your local NUT division or association secretary.”
Neither of these policies have a significant impact on the pay or conditions of teachers. They are simply having, as civil servants, their work determined by government policy. The NUT has taken on itself the task of determining what is best for children. But they are not elected representatives of the people and their members‘ best interests may often be in conflict with the best interests of pupils. And so it has been for at least 40 years.
1 to 12 of 12
