State/private application divide

Reply 40

Aquar

8

Original post by Sheldor

I totally agree with the second paragraph, probably should of said "as good as and better than" there. :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

*"should have said

Reply 41

nexttime

22

Original post by lightburns

That is why schools stream, after all.

Not every school streams. Indeed, its illegal in countries like Finland, who have the best educational outcomes in the world.

Grammar schools are a really tough question. Giving such a life-changing test as the 11+ to someone so young is pretty unsavoury in itself. Factor in the frequent practice of everyone with any money or education tutoring their kids intensively for it, whilst everyone not in the know just leaving them be, you effectively end up with grammar being middle class schools and comps being lower class schools. You can see why they were scrapped.

On the other hand, social mobility has only fallen since then. A lack of top state schools makes every parent who can afford it at least consider the private alternative,which they may otherwise not have done. Plus I personally find the argument that putting the brightest pupils together leads to better results compelling, though i have no evidence for it.

Tough question.

Reply 42

Blutooth

OP

16

Original post by Jkn

Applications being assessed blindly is a bad idea in some subjects. Cambridge's Science and Mathematics students from state schools achieve, on average, higher marks on the Tripos' than those from the private sector with the equivalent A-level results (see slide 9: http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/teachers/docs/student_conference_teacher_forum_presentation.pdf).This indicates a steeper learning curve for those from state schools in these specific subjects!

That may have something to do with it.

Read this (specifically the table as well as key conclusion 1): http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/admissions/research/docs/prefective_effectiveness_of_metrics_in_admission.pdf

The correlation coefficients for the other subjects is around 0.4 and so the A-levels are difficult/relevant enough to make fairly good predictions. Assuming STEP's correlation with the other subjects would have been around 0.5 as well, they must've concluded that the difference was too small for it to be worthwhile.

Also, the workload for STEP is tremendous and so it is unfair to ask students to do it if it would lead to them having to compromise A-level learning significantly. The correlation for maths being so much lower than the others suggests to me that this is because people are clustering around full marks to a greater extent than with other subjects - meaning they find their subject easier - therefore it is fairer to ask these students to shift their workload from A-level on to STEP than it is with students of other disciplines. :tongue:

Yes, I think your remarks about STEP papers are quite right. Quite a sharp analysis.

Reply 43

Blutooth

OP

16

Original post by nexttime

Not every school streams. Indeed, its illegal in countries like Finland, who have the best educational outcomes in the world.

Grammar schools are a really tough question. Giving such a life-changing test as the 11+ to someone so young is pretty unsavoury in itself. Factor in the frequent practice of everyone with any money or education tutoring their kids intensively for it, whilst everyone not in the know just leaving them be, you effectively end up with grammar being middle class schools and comps being lower class schools. You can see why they were scrapped.

On the other hand, social mobility has only fallen since then. A lack of top state schools makes every parent who can afford it at least consider the private alternative,which they may otherwise not have done. Plus I personally find the argument that putting the brightest pupils together leads to better results compelling, though i have no evidence for it.

Tough question.

There is nothing tough about deciding whether grammar schools are a force for good. The facts are that they are a wonderful part of the educational establishment. By doing away with such an asset, you are putting down the lucky children who would have been accepted by them.

To think that we are not moulded by such a significant degree by our parenting is just ignoring the facts. If your parents were ne'er-do-wells, criminals, druggies, benefits cheats it's likely that they wouldn't have prepared you for a disciplined and academic path- seeing as how they did not themselves see the benefit in it. Conversely, if your parents were university graduates, and saw the value of education, it's likely they would have prepared you well for an academic path... even if you went to a comprehensive.

What grammar schools provide is an environment where parents who care about their children's education will be unimpeded by the status-quo, mediocrity and government bureaucracy. It is a misconception that grammar schools are a place only for the most gifted boys and girls, though of course many gifted boys and girls are accepted there.

To think that education can be provided in an absolutely fair way, regardless of who the parents were, is thinking with your head in the clouds. Ultimately, the government must work in concert with the parents to ensure we have minimum standards, but must grant parents the autonomy and freedom to educate their children to the best of their abilities. If that means coaching and preparing their kids to get into good state schools, then who are the government to stop them? Some sort of bigger brother, seeking to crush the dreams of parents and level everyone at the age of 11, in spite of learned and/ or innate differences? I hope not- it's antithesis to one of this countries most honoured virtues. Freedom.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 44

anspailpinfanach

7

Original post by Blutooth

T
To think that education can be provided in an absolutely fair way, regardless of who the parents were, is thinking with your head in the clouds.

So how do other countries, without grammar schools, manage then?

The fastest easiest way to improve education in this country is to remove grammar schools AND remove private schools. If everybody is going to their local school, you will get more kids at those schools who take education seriously. More importantly the parents with the time and the money to improve their kids schools by sitting on boards of governors and fundraising and all of that malarkey will be investing that in their local school, to the benefit of everybody.

Really, though, it's that bit that people in this country don't want. Why improve things for everybody, when they could just improve things for their own kids? God forbid that there would actually be a level playing field, and parents couldn't simply buy advantage for their children.

Because what would benefit the country as a whole is more equality, but what would benefit rich children more is less equality.

Not very surprising then that what we get is less equality.

Reply 45

wibletg

3

Original post by anspailpinfanach

So how do other countries, without grammar schools, manage then?

The fastest easiest way to improve education in this country is to remove grammar schools AND remove private schools. If everybody is going to their local school, you will get more kids at those schools who take education seriously. More importantly the parents with the time and the money to improve their kids schools by sitting on boards of governors and fundraising and all of that malarkey will be investing that in their local school, to the benefit of everybody.

Really, though, it's that bit that people in this country don't want. Why improve things for everybody, when they could just improve things for their own kids? God forbid that there would actually be a level playing field, and parents couldn't simply buy advantage for their children.

Because what would benefit the country as a whole is more equality, but what would benefit rich children more is less equality.

Not very surprising then that what we get is less equality.

What would be done about the situation where the kids who simply don't care pull other students' achievement down?

The people of Finland probably have an entirely different attitude to the one that exists in the UK - do they have this issue?

EDIT: I'm not going to lie, I do agree with what you're saying, but there are a lot of issues to overcome. Someone who is determined is going to succeed wherever they end up.

Reply 46

Blutooth

OP

16

Original post by anspailpinfanach

So how do other countries, without grammar schools, manage then?

The fastest easiest way to improve education in this country is to remove grammar schools AND remove private schools. If everybody is going to their local school, you will get more kids at those schools who take education seriously. More importantly the parents with the time and the money to improve their kids schools by sitting on boards of governors and fundraising and all of that malarkey will be investing that in their local school, to the benefit of everybody.

Really, though, it's that bit that people in this country don't want. Why improve things for everybody, when they could just improve things for their own kids? God forbid that there would actually be a level playing field, and parents couldn't simply buy advantage for their children.

Because what would benefit the country as a whole is more equality, but what would benefit rich children more is less equality.

Not very surprising then that what we get is less equality.

You are missing the point. Education is more than just a school, it's the exposure to the world that having intelligent parents can afford. The middle class will always be able to afford books, museum trips and private tutors, or to send their kids abroad. Getting rid of private schools doesn't stop the problem, it just means parents who want to educate their kids well have to find more novel ways of doing so. And gets rid of one of the few parts of the educational sector that seems to be doing things right.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 47

wibletg

3

Original post by Blutooth

You are missing the point. Education is more than just a school, it's the exposure to the world that having intelligent parents can afford. The middle class will always be able to afford books, museum trips and private tutors, or to send their kids abroad. Getting rid of state/ private schools doesn't stop the problem, it just means parents who want to educate their kids well have to find more novel ways of doing so. And gets rid of one of the few parts of the educational sector that seems to be doing things right.

Going abroad is one thing, but learning to deal with people from a vastly different background in your own country is immensely important as well - it's something that can only really be learned from attending a state comprehensive.

Reply 48

anspailpinfanach

7

Original post by wibletg

What would be done about the situation where the kids who simply don't care pull other students' achievement down?

The people of Finland probably have an entirely different attitude to the one that exists in the UK - do they have this issue?

EDIT: I'm not going to lie, I do agree with what you're saying, but there are a lot of issues to overcome. Someone who is determined is going to succeed wherever they end up.

I'm not saying it's easy! But if comprehensives are TRULY comprehensive, they will cover all abilities and interests. So if you have streaming (have no idea how they manage without that in Finland!), the children in your class will be at your level. So the ones who don't care will sink through the streams, and the ones who do, will rise.

Also agree you can't eliminate all bias - the kid who is doing their homework sitting on the stairs, because there is nowhere else, is always going to be at a disadvantage to the one who has their own room and desk. But at least the standard of education they are both getting while IN school would be more equal.

And the parents who are interested in education will be more likely to hold the school to account for bad teaching then the parents who never got beyond GCSE and don't feel qualified to challenge the school, which would also benefit all of the children.

Probably cloud cuckoo land, but I'd rather dream of better things, then just accepting that the way things are is how they have got to be forever.

Reply 49

fluteflute

19

Original post by Blutooth

You are missing the point. Education is more than just a school

[...]

Getting rid of state/ private schools [...] gets rid of one of the few parts of the educational sector that seems to be doing things right.

I'm confused ( :confused:

) as to what you think is working and what you think isn't?

Reply 50

Nathanielle

15

Original post by Arketec

I think you're right in that sense but in another sense it divides children at an early age academically and socially.

Yes and no. I think this part of devision is also created by society (society at a whole should be more accepting to people, who need a bit longer at a certain time in your life, wether this is in primary, sixth form or university) and I doubt being the last one in class is this encouraging. The devision allows the weaker students to get better grades and to work on their weaknesses. It is not the school system that makes them feel bitter, it is the judgement of others.

In addition for the others it can be impossible to develop the right working moral, because in a school system without sets and without the will to leave somebody behind, you HAVE to adjust to the slow pupils. The only model worth thinking would be a comprehensive, where everybody is working at their own pace and where there exist no GSCEs, who have to be taken at one Level and only in the subjects you want, too. But I think although the British School System tried to do that, we pretty much all agree here, that it doesn't work and that it can't be only wealth of the parents that determines, that pupils at Sevenoaks do all IB. (And you need to do academic A Levels to get into Oxbridge anyway.)

And as long as the teachers can choose, where they want to work, they will, wether this will a comprehensive in a rich area or a public school. (Take London: You simply can't afford as a member of the working class to get a flat next to someone of the upper class.) By forcing every teacher to work (maybe at least for a time during his career) at a comprehensive this problem would be gone.

I personally went to school in a country with grammar schools all the way round. So even the ones with rich parents, whose children would sometimes going on to sixth form on the really expensive british boarding schools, would be at our state grammar schools until sixth form. Simply because the parents liked to have their younger kids around them and knew this would not give them any disadvantage. And that for me is a huge plus of a grammar school system: Even the ones, who have the money, have to make a real decision between schools, because a big part of the most academic schools are state run. (And at least in big cities the extra curricular program is not that important.)

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 51

Arketec

14

Original post by Nathanielle

Yes and no. I think this part of devision is also created by society (society at a whole should be more accepting to people, who need a bit longer at a certain time in your life, wether this is in primary, sixth form or university) and I doubt being the last one in class is this encouraging. The devision allows the weaker students to get better grades and to work on their weaknesses. It is not the school system that makes them feel bitter, it is the judgement of others.

In addition for the others it can be impossible to develop the right working moral, because in a school system without sets and without the will to leave somebody behind, you HAVE to adjust to the slow pupils. The only model worth thinking would be a comprehensive, where everybody is working at their own pace and where there exist no GSCEs, who have to be taken at one Level and only in the subjects you want, too. But I think although the British School System tried to do that, we pretty much all agree here, that it doesn't work and that it can't be only wealth of the parents that determines, that pupils at Sevenoaks do all IB. (And you need to do academic A Levels to get into Oxbridge anyway.)

Oh and in reply to blutooth who's going on about parents who are druggies etc. I've met plenty of kids from both grammar and public schools who are not only druggies themselves but deal drugs under the protection of their corrupt parents.

I'm not saying its all bad at a secondary modern I had great times there both socially and academically and I'm not saying grammar schools are bad either. My brother went to the former and my sister the latter my brother is working class and my sister went on to university and is middle class. I think this is general form where you have the grammar school system. Whether that is right or wrong is debatable and the fact that the grammar school system only exists in small regions shows that most people find the comprehensive system works better for most people in most places. Where I lived Canterbury the grammar school system includes schools of technology, so for the pupil who passes their 11+ there is a choice should you go to an academically based school or a science based school which is fine. The science and technology schools in Canterbury allow local pupils in under a divided system where if the pupil achieves good grades they can cross the divide and join the top half of the school and presumably the teachers teach on both sides of the divide as well. There are more deprived schools within the system like the one I went to and the quality of teaching on the whole was bad. There were a few good teachers in my years there but they were few and far between. I'm not going to say no one ever got into university but I reckon you could count the ones that did on one hand.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 52

Arketec

14

Original post by Joinedup

the 3 best known facts about the early life of william hague are...
He's from a comparivately humble background (especially for a tory of his cohort)

he went to a state grammar school.

he made a speech to the conservative party conference aged 16, this was quite an unusual thing for a 16 yo to do, even in the 70s

You might be right it might have been William Hague and the teacher talking to the oxford tutor would then have been from a state run school.

Or it might not have been William Hague in the programme. I guess we'll never know.