to not get the whole "children from comprehensives work harder to get the grades"

[Ohjustshootmenow]

An exam is an exam, right?

I think the point is that if you have better teaching and reasources it is easier to pass the exam or get a higher grade than if you have less good teaching.

Makes a lot of assumptions about the teachers in different schools.

There is considerable evidence to show that comprehensive children do better at university than their peers from independent/grammar schools with the same grades.

Children in private education work extremely hard. These schools have reputations to keep and slacking is not tolerated.

Just because their families are wealthy and/or the children bright it does not mean they have photographic memories.

I think it is a point about motivation. Children in academically selective schools are usually pushed to reach their potential, whereas in some comprehensives, the pupils can be left to their own devices once they're acheiving a C grade, as the schools tend to focus on those that are failing. Therefore, in some comprehensives, the children may have to be more self-motivated to acheive high grades.

The point about self-motivation may also explain why students with similar grades may do better at university than their peers from academically selective schools, as the comprehensive students may be more used to motivating themselves.

Children in comprehensives have to work harder because they are more likely to be in a disruptive atmosphere in the classroom.

My friend got 4 A grades at A level back in the 80s in one of the most ghastly comps in the country. As it was an interestingly experimental place it attracted some very good teachers, who encouraged my friend to aim for Oxbridge and taught her accordingly. Without those influences and her own sheer hard work I doubt she would have had enough education to get the grades she did. She was one of two in her year to get A levels and go to university. All the others in her year were retaking O Levels in the 6th form and/or pregnant or dropping out.

Disruptive pupils happen in all schools bubblewrapped

Disruptive children can be easily dismissed from a private school. Not the case in state schools.

shoot- in the private school there is maybe ten disrupters and potential disrupters per year and they are ushered sharpish out the door if they don't knuckle down (they mostly do knuckle down). In all the state schools I've taught in there has been 2-3 majorly disruptive pupils per class and an obligation to keep them in imposed by the LEA allied with few ways of dealing with their behaviour.

But how about the middle ground - Grammar schools - state schools with private ethos. Still get disruptive pupils there.

An exam is an exam, right?

Grades don't just depend on exams nowadays though. Coursework surely requires more consistency, maybe that has an effect?

(I don't know, my DDs only in yr7 just speculating)

Having to be self-motivated does stand you in good stead for uni. I went to a bog-standard GS-turning-comp where we were taught well. My DH couldn't believe my physics notebooks! He went to a private school where they didn't cover the syllabus properly, he bought the texts and taught himself and his friend A-level sciences.

He did superbly at university. The flip side was that the rest of his A-level group got poor grades.

Not sure what the moral of that is

(btw i'm being flippant in most cases to cause discussion just to warn you :o)

YABU. Disruption and disaffection is more common in non-selective schools I think.

It depends on the individual child and the individual family and the individual school. My dd is not only an academically gifted child; she comes from an academic family who has immersed her in books and culture since before she could toddle, and the comprehensive she attends expects good results of their pupils and generally get them. I wouldn't say it takes a massive effort of dd to get good results: she is getting a lot of what a child at private school would get. Admittedly, she has to put up with some disruptive children, and some children who hate learning and whose families are not positive- but it's not the default position.

When we visited another secondary, one mainly serving the estates, we noticed that they had very low expectations of their pupils; they seemed to assume that ds would not be interested in going down the academic route before they'd even spoken to him. It seems that this is their experience of their pupils. If you were a pupil at such a school and did not have the kind of parents who could compensate, then I imagine you would have to work very hard indeed to get results that were in any way comparable. A child who managed to do that would indeed be an outstanding person and likely to succeed in anything they put their hands to later in life.

But of course a moderately bright child who does not have this strength of character and determination would have far fewer chances of success- and that is the kind of child who might be pushed to succeed in a different setting.

How do you not get it?? That is surely why there are pages and pages of threads on sites like this of parents wanting to get their children into better schools, moving house, going without things to try and give their children a better education with smaller classes sizes, more one on one tuition, extra curricular activities etc etc otherwise why would they bother!!!! A child from a low achieving comp that gets high grades, has had to work harder and put up with far more distractions than someone who went to a private school, there is no doubt about it.

I suppose a problem arises when A' Level grades are used as a mechanism to differentiate between the applicants for a limited number of university places. If you know that loads of privately educated pupils will come out with straight A's (because they are facilitated and pushed) you will not be able to determine who amongst them is more academic. On the other hand, very few state school pupils get straight A's and you know that to achieve those grades (despite poor resources, disruptive classrooms etc) they must be highly academic.

It doesn't necessarily mean that they have worked harder, it is just a clearer indication of natural ability.

Mind you, even a good school is not the whole answer.

I got far more out of my bog standard comp than dh got out of Latymer's. The simple reason being that his family had no idea of how hard he was expected to work- and therefore dh had no idea either. His teachers did try to hint but it doesn't seem to have sunk through. We have his old school reports and they are full of heavy hints- but his family seemed to think he did really well at school. He failed his exams. Dh is actually a very intelligent person who has done well in life- but it took him years to understand what was expected of him.

I otoh came from a family where people were always pushing themselves to learn more- I didn't really need a school to show me how to do that. Good teaching (when it happened) was a great advantage, but not a sine qua non.

So we're all agreed that an A from a comprehensive is worth more than an A from a public school, meaning that there should be positive discrimination for comprehensive children applying for university?

No, jeee - I think most people are saying that in some circumstances and A from a child at a comprehensive (particularly if that school doesn't have a very academic record, may indicate a higher level of work/dedication/potential than an A from a child at a private school.

No, I'm not all agreed: I think it absolutely depends on the actual child/family/comp. I am sure it was more natural for me to get good grades, in my comp but with uber-academic family, than for dh in his private school with parents who could never follow a sequence of thought through (though absolutely lovely people). I think it's a combination of factors.

Positive discrimination will enable comprehensives to stay complacently as they are. To no general benefit.

No i don't agree. There is much more to a university application than exam grades.

Each application should be judged on it's individual merits, in conjunction with a level grades.

Actually Bramshott & Cory, I agree with you both. And in any event, not all comprehensives are equal.

But I do find it interesting that people will pay for education because it will lead to better grades for their children, and then object strongly to any suggestion that there should be help for kids from the poorest backgrounds/lowest performing schools - including flexibility of grades.