Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Run Britain

Hi Lilymaid - sorry about what I'd remembered about the '54' figure - but it's interesting (and impressive), isn't it - if ex state school pupils who got three A's at A level are fifty four per cent more likely to get a first than their equivalents from fee paying schools!

So, for every three ex state school, 3 'A' grade pupils getting a First, only two ex public school coming from the same academic starting point, will (have I got my maths right?!)

Actually Lilymaid I'm sure I didn't see the Telegraph at the weekend - it might have been in The Observer that I saw the piece, I'll have another look, anyhow. Thanks for putting up the Telegraph piece.

Dotnet
I think the newspaper article you referred to on Sunday was the Daily Telegraph

"Pupils from private schools achieve higher average A-level results, but high-achieving state school pupils do better at university.

Undergraduates who obtained three As at A-level were 54 per cent more likely to gain a first-class degree if they attended a state school than if they were privately educated, according to the study."

Not quite what you argued.

Hey ho, TapselteeriO - one day we'll get it (free education) back again. We must, it's vital. I do believe it will come back one day.

Meanwhile - poor, poor students, this government has betrayed them shamefully.

I haven't read all the thread, so - apols if someone else has pointed this out...

It was in the newspapers recently that a survey at the University of Bristol showed that a higher proportion of graduates who had gone to state school and come out with 3 'A' grades, went on to get Firsts, than did ex-independent school pupils who started at Bristol with 3 'A' grades. Fifty four per cent of the state school kids with 3 'A' grades got firsts ( I forget the ex-independent school stats, but there was quite a difference.)

That's good, then, isn't it? Take away all the extra prodding and pushing and polishing and - state school kids are NOT 'worse' - far from it.

God only knows why we have gone back to the 1950s in our political leadership - or indeed, why we have made so little progress generally in getting 'representative' politicians in parliament.

If there was, say, a one-year 'Life in Politics' practical course available and widely known, maybe a broad spectrum of people would apply. It could be a recognised entree for career politicians.

But, to make takeup across a broad spectrum feasible, free higher education would have to be made available to all.

Now, which forward thinking politician would like to work on that?

The country would be eternally grateful.

""I would have been shocked""

Good, ille try again then.

My DH is an ex public schoolboy, and lovely.
You picked badly.

My ex was a Cambridge graduate, MASSIVE sense of entitlement that made him arrogant and eventually unbearable, along with all his uni friends. Half the reason we are not together.

Claig. Yes. The term 'outstanding' does that mean that they (or mostly all of them reach) the required attainment of the three Rs by the time they leave school? I'm now beginning to question these terms!
Goodnight (I've had enough contretemps for one night, with the school!)

Rabbitstew. Yes lack of 'flexibility' is right.
My DH and I have told the teacher, please corrrect what is wrong. My DS has a private tutor as said, and she always corrects all mistakes either in maths or english. DS says he likes it as he knows where he stands.

With DS teacher and her method of correcting school/homework, DS is not sure if he has written an essay properly or not, as she has not corrected all of the mistakes in the paper.

I only really picked this up at a parents' consultation. Looking through school work.

I'm sure I made mistakes at the LSE, but I was an adult then. For my son who will have to sit entrance exams, there will be no sensitive teacher forgiving his spelling mistakes. I feel all of his work should be corrected. If other MNs DC are going to schools that don't carry out this teaching method, I would be glad to hear from them!
Posh and Posher! Now you know why!

I think the problem with it is its lack of flexibility - fulfilling set criteria rather than meeting the needs of individuals. Some children can cope with all their obvious mistakes being corrected in every piece of work that they do and others are so lacking in confidence that getting them to put pen to paper in the first place is quite an achievement! Surely a good teacher should be able to discriminate between the two and alter their approach accordingly? After all, in State schools, teachers have to teach children from a whole range of backgrounds with a whole range of abilities and disabilities; at Eton, they screen out a huge proportion of children before they've even started, so it is easier and more appropriate for them to adpot a more uniform style of teaching.

I do, however, think it is a dreadful mistake not to have sessions during the school week where the whole purpose of the session is to practise grammar, spelling and punctuation and to correct any errors in understanding, particularly if errors in other contexts are virtually never corrected!

One thing I would question is that your teachers always corrected all of your mistakes. There are mistakes and there are mistakes... I am aware that I still make occasional errors in grammar or punctuation, or even spelling, but none so glaring that the whole meaning of my sentence is lost. I'm sure I still did that at Oxford and I don't remember my tutors littering my essays with comments and corrections. And then, of course, there are preferred spellings versus acceptable spellings; definite grammatical rules that must never be broken and preferred ways of doing things. What grates for one person may be acceptable to another. Some corrections may be more personal taste than others. Some I would most definitely always highlight as WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, whatever the subject or the context, because they are particularly irritating and unmistakeable mistakes (its and it's; apple's versus apples, for example...).

I think a lot of us have lost faith in what the progressives call 'outstanding', just as we have lost faith in their A* grades.

TBH Claig, The teacher said she could see, where my husband and I were coming from, and our concerns, but she said these were the 'guidelines'. I pointed out that if a newspaper (such as the Mail) got hold of this, they would have a field day! Or is this method of teaching the norm? Do most parents know about this?

As, I say this school is classified 'outstanding'.

When did this method of teaching begin?

Anyone can see why children come out of school, unable to read and write.

I am so happy I can give a public school education to my children, I only wish I'd sent my DS to a prep school!

I wonder if Tony Blair paid the private tutor for his children to only correct some of the spelling mistakes of his children. What progressive came up with this idea?

Yes here's me being critical of the school 'dam', damn!

I have gone over this with her, about the RED PEN, I suggested, that she wrote it in pencil! I can understand if she is worrying about his confidence,(he's nine) but at my primary we had a superior education, due to all of our work being corrected. In those days the school taught you to read and write, not your parents.

My son is confident, and I'm against this approach to teaching. I would agree with you if the children had special tuiton to help with spelling etc, at the school, (which they don't) My son does, by a private tutor. Some don't.

Is this how they go about marking at Eton? I don't think so. Having only to mark four spelling mistakes (out of perhaps many) is shameful, as said, how do they learn? Suffice to say we are not happy, and neither will the head be, when we see her!

How old is your ds, complimentary? I wouldn't object to not correcting all spelling mistakes at the start of school when children have only just started to write, as I can see that would be extremely demoralising. I would hope the percentage of corrected mistakes would gradually go up as they get older, though! I can also see that in a piece of writing with umpteen mistakes, a child would switch off a bit if its work were a sea of red pen - unless the work had specifically been set as a test of spelling, grammar and punctuation.

I still very clearly remember learning to spell "definite," because it was the only word my teacher had circled in a piece of creative-writing work I did and I had written it about three times (I had spelt it as "definate")... Maybe it was the only mistake I made in that essay, but quite possibly not and the fact that it was so clearly circled and stood out so much made it extremely noticeable and highly embarrassing - in other words, it was much more effective in causing me to mend my ways than a sea of red marks would have been! I therefore don't think it is always wrong not to correct everything (but would hope that only correcting 5% of mistakes would be in relation to very young children or children with big confidence issues around spelling who are having specific lessons to help remediate this. ie let them enjoy working on the content without spoiling it with too much red pen where this is the main purpose of the exercise, but make sure they also have specific tuition to help them with their spelling, grammar and punctuation where correction of all mistakes is permitted).

ps it's "damn"...

Rabbitstew. My husband and I have three degrees between us. What happens to the kids of the illiterate/not well read/couldn't or won't give a dam parents?

Rabbitstew.

I do think it is a change in teaching techniques and here's why;

I have just returned with DH from seeing my son's teacher. My son is at a top state school.
I wondered (naively) why all of his mistakes in his homework, were not marked by her, and this included class work. I stupidly thought that if a child had mistakes in his essay that all the mistakes would be corrected. Not so.

The teacher showed my husband and I the school guideline' on marking.

A teacher only has to mark the first four spellings that are wrong. So if the pupil gets 20 or 25 spelling mistakes in a piece of homework, these don't all have to be corrected. It is a child centred approach to learning, so that the child does not lose confidence by having all the mistakes corrected. Also with 30 children in the class it would take a long time to mark grammar/spellling in every piece of work? So how do they ever learn? My husband and I were shocked. Flabbergasted would be a better word! I said that I would take it up with the Headteacher. Is this the norm all over the country? I take it that it is. One must remember this school is one of the top 5% in the country. I said to my husband if this is the policy at a top school, god help those at a bad schools/failing ones. Why have teaching methods changed so much? If I had known the school had these policies I would have sent him to prep school. This is why I will send my children to public schools.

Complimentary - do you think this is because of changes in teaching techniques over the last 10-15 years? Or changes in parenting and childcare arrangements before starting school (ie changes in the levels of school readiness for children starting in State schools)? Or because of something else?

Educationally this country did a lot worse under labour. A quarter of primary children now leave school unable to grasp Maths and English. Have to go, otherwise, I'd go on for longer!

I don't think this country is particuarly low income tax - and if you wanted to raise it further I suspect there would be plenty of complaints about increasing the rate from 22%. I'm ignoring the option of increasing the 50% rate because (1) it wouldn't raise much because very few people pay it and (2) it wouldn't raise much because the evidence suggests that the Laffer curve effect is real.

I suspect you would have more of an argument if you were asking for greater redistribution rather than just more tax.

""As long as our state school education is so awful we will never be truly representative in the political arena."""

State education in Britain will never be fully funded adaqusately all the time we British keep electing low income tax right wing Government's who'se political agenda is social engineering which makes sure that the brightest kids only, make it through the State system, because this is what it's all about.

By voting for low income tax right wing government's we get what we pay for, ie crassly uneducated youngsters.

And then we wonder why Britain is a hive of crime and drugs ect.

Tapselteerio.
As long as our state school education is so awful we will never be truly representative in the political arena.
Most independent/public school children are articulate and confident, that is how I have found them, visiting them recently.
Not only do they have the networking skills to ensure that they get top jobs, they can also articulate themselves and know what they want.
Going to my lovely secondary modern, I did not know my arse from my elbow. It was only later when through sheer hard work went on in later life to get my degrees and became inerested in politics, i began to understand how the 'system' worked. Many, many, public school kids are actively encouraged to be interested in poliitcs at a young age, by the school they attend. They have debating societies, hold debates every week and speak on various topics, this holds them in good stead for the public speaking skills you would need in the Commons, they also receive and excellent education and have interests, known as the 'other half'. As the BB2 documentary showed, most state school children are not even encouraged in politics, let alone a a career as a Barrister, Doctor etc. Paul Willis wrote an excellent book (Learning to Labour) on why working class boys under achieve. WHY can't the state system at least in part emulate the public schools?

Both the government, the media, and the politicians are saying this, but we are being run on a low income tax agenda, instead of high income tax.