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

[Ohjustshootmenow]

An exam is an exam, right?

i went to grammar school, some of the teachers were genius and others total rubbish, some cared and some didnt, some kids smoked at the back of the field and smoked weed in class, like a normal school

The problem here is that you can never make things absolutely fair. Life isn't

I understand that some state schools may have disadvantages but there are huge variations. My cousin's family live in an area with excellent state schools, their son got 4As and is now studying medicine at a good uni.

I live in an area with crap state schools so paid for my children to go to independent school (which IMO was no better than the state school my cousin's family attended). Is it right that after all the years that they had holidays and we didn't, that they had new cars and we didn't, etc that my son, who also got 4As should be discriminated against? I can see the argument but it feels unfair after we sacrificed to give our children the chance that in other areas was given for free.

There is no way of making life completely fair unfortunately.

Atswim: a very good example. He is however judged alongside them because in applying for university (if that is what he did), he enters a competitive process. That is why interviews are so important, as is the flexibility admissions tutors have to vary offers. For without interview, how would said tutor tell which of this with a higher raw score was genuinely academic, and which was not - for it is equally unfair to assume a child from a "better" school is not also talented.

Fiddling round with university admissions does not solve the inequalities in schools. As I posted on another thread, examples such as Mossbury Academy show what can be done. How can more like that happen?

A lot of ambitious comprehensives, do what the indies do, and have developed relationships with universities, particularly the Oxbridge colleges, and if they have an interesting student coming up they get seen. Formal/informal assessment takes place and often from that an offer is made, sometimes if the student is exceptional, it's unconditional.

I worked hard. My friend and I did A level biology on our own, as our teacher was absent most of the time. We were the only ones who got a decent grade from our group of about 20.

The idea of giving this some credit though is not new - when I applied to uni (in 1992) I was given a lower offer, on account of being a) from a comprehensive and b) a girl who wanted to do science. Yes really.

Atswim - that says it all really.

I agree with you.

I did OK but but way back in the day parents did send their kids to the local school with and you took 11+ and if you did well you went to grammar and if you failed 11+ you went to the local comp and in my area at least there were few (crap) private schools as there was little demand for them.

So different now and I certainly feel that comp school kids who do well have done really bloody well.

It is very hard - you can never make life fair. I went to a fantastic private school with great teachers and committed pupils.

That said I worked from 7 in the morning right through to 10 at night every Monday- Friday and a good chunk of the weekend too. Most of my friends did too. I also took loads of work and reading home in the holidays. That was just normal. Now I work daytimes until the kids are out of school, feed them stories etc put the kids to bed then catch up on work in the evenings or do voluntary stuff.

At uni I noticed I was unusual in the amount of work I considered normal - Comps don't seem to push the need to work work work for your grades. It was the background work, the reading the extra essays (which my parents or their colleagues graded if my teachers wouldn't)the exam prep (and if teachers won't give you the past papers you can get them and get them graded over the internet). I know it is harder where there is no tradition of academic expectation and achievement but while I was very lucky I worked for academic success and anyone can do this.

The new free schools and academys should help inculcate this sense of work ethic.

AimingForSerenity - completely agree you wonder what the bloody point is, work hard to do right by your children and they have the rug pulled from under them.
Clearly though I am making the right choice then by putting mine through private primary and then the state grammars and two fingers to anyone who says it's not fair, no it's not, tough.

mamatomany - what if your kids don't pass the 11+? What if they are dyslexic or even have glandular fever at Exam time?

Just a thought.

tigi - I think you are right that DC have to learn from a young age that hard work is imperative.
And they do know this instinctively. Watch a child try to walk. They will haul themselves up against the furniture. Fall down. Try again and again and again.

However, many parents worry about overloading their DC once they gte to school.
All of a sudden homework, reading, after school activities are 'ruining childhood'.

They refuse to ask their children to do the smallest tasks.

I know I sound all Tiger Mother (and no I don't threaten to burn my children's soft toys ) but I do think my children are pretty robust and that they can give of their best without spontaneously combusting.

Blimey Mummy it must be a barrel of laughs in your gaff.

You can't plan your life based on every wee disaster peeping around the corner.

Interesting article :

here

I am sure universities differentiate between the good comps and the terrible ones. In my comp of 700 pupils only a handful every year went to university and the grades achieved at exams were generally very low.

This could easily be compared to comps where pupils are getting good grades and sending lots of pupils to university.

And its not about being fair. The fact is that good universities want to get the best pupils. Lots of research has shown that children at poor comps with slightly lower grades do better at university than pupils with higher grades at a good comp or private school. So universities choose who they think are the best candidates bearing this in mind.

Few people would argue that universities should only judge on grades to choose the best candidates. For example, john has done really well in his continous assessment for his English A level. A week before his Alevel English his father dies. John doesn't get his predicted grade in his A level. If John was applying to do English at University, most universities I am sure would take these circumstances into account.

That is all universities are doing when they are considering the schools that applicants are coming from.

Thanks for linking that, FerociousBeast.

Admissions tutors already have the flexibily it describes, and most of the widening access measures are already in place. The new scholarship fund (which I really hope won't be overly bureaucratic) sounds promising.

But unless we want universities to drop their standards, the place where change is needed is in the school.

Or will there have to be more "year zero" courses?

Yes, I agree. Who knows what the solution is really. It certainly isn't the fault of teachers. The most dedicated people I know teach in secondary schools. They could not work harder or deal with more.

Anyway I must ofski I promised myself I would de register today, finally. I have to get on with real life

Of course the real changes that are needed is in schools. But the last Government tried to do that for years. May have been successful in some schools. But where parents have choices about schools, there are always going to be unpopular schools, that are more likely to have the disruptive kids and teachers who can't get jobs elsewhere. Although I know such schools can attract very good teachers.

Litchick - I just think people need to be prepared in case their little genius doesn't get into Grammar school (for whatever reason).

And yes I am thankful all the time that I have access to a fabulous comprehensive for my intelligent son who has dyslexia and would never have passed 11+.

mamatomany - what if your kids don't pass the 11+? What if they are dyslexic or even have glandular fever at Exam time?

Luckily one has passed already so three to go and no signs of being dyslexic however you'd appeal if they were ill on the day wouldn't you ? I have at least one child who would do much better to stay in the private system but if I can't take the chance that despite her efforts she'll be penalised when it comes to university then we'll play the game another way.

So what we're really saying is that dividing on strict lines of private/state for grade offers doesn't make it any fairer because there are "good" and "bad", depending on your definitions, in both sectors.

What I want to know is why "bad" state schools are allowed to continue failing their pupils. Why should bright children (or not so bright ones) have to do well "in spite of" their school? Why should children have to "do ok" in any school and not fulfil their potential.

It seems that caring parents who see a failing school (based on poor results) can't really do anything about it. Sending their child there seems like throwing it to the sharks. If it's the school telling you that you're not good enough to apply to a university or you won't fit in then it's the school that's at fault. Poverty of aspiration and all that.

Personally I think secondary schools are too large never mind class sizes.

Thing is mama I don't think admissions tutors are going to give children a leg up from GS just ebcause it's state.

The government have made it plain that access muts be made to disadvantaged students ie those on free school meals, those from the worst performing schools and those parents did not attend tertiary education.

cokefan I did think that too.

If Oxbridge, for example, identify a school as being so bad that a pupil from there is at a disadvantage and is thus given a lower offer...how does the school react to that? Or the state?

Do we just say, ah well it's okay, Oxbridge are makeing lower offers...

Are we now accepting that some schools are dire and that's juts the way it is?

IME its not schools telling you you are not good enough to apply to university, it is schools not suggesting it as an option to their brighter pupils. So if parents don't suggest it, pupils can end up seeing universities as for posh people.

Oxford are not accepting some schools are dire and that is the way it is. Oxford are trying to get the best pupils overall. And they know a pupil from a very low achieving disadvantaged school can be better academically than a pupil from a better school, but still achieve slightly lower grades.

pupils can end up seeing universities as for posh people.

With 50% attending and god knows how many applying i'd say it's quite the opposite problem, the admission tutors are struggling under the weight of applications at least proportion shouldn't be considering university but the teachers are pushing that option over any other at the moment.

I'm fairly sure that I got into Cambridge with a lower offer than someone from a 'top' public school. This was in the days before grade inflation, when getting three 'A's was very rare. I was interviewed and given a slightly lower (by one grade) offer than a couple of my friends at the same college I found out later.

I think this was entirely fair, I went to a poor comprehensive, and worked very hard, but my teachers were on strike a good deal and refused to tutor for the 'S' level (which was what most Oxbridge colleges required). They basically scuppered my chances, not because they were mean, but it was never in their sights (and also told me not to apply as we had no contacts and I'd never do it).

The faith of the interviewer/college was rewarded and I left university with the highest possible grade.

I don't think that universities should routinely give out lower offers, I think they should consider the student, the school's results (one glance at mine and they could see that few children got good grades) and if possible individual interview to see if there is that 'spark'.