only 1% of oxbridge students got free school meals

[itsawonderfuldarleneconnorlife]

DM link

Is there any solution to this other than bringing back grammars for every county?

There's oodles of research to say that by the age of three, children from disadvantaged homes are up to a year behind in their learning than those from more privileged backgrounds.

So I never understand the surprise about this TBH.

It's too late to select by age 18 when these differences are compounded. Even by 11. Even by 3.

It's not just about what Oxbridge can do it's about tackling poverty and making it an equal playing field for children from birth.

The statement is over simplified. Poverty doesn't always equal "disadvantaged" children. Many children from homes where money is tight are accademically successful, others from more afluent homes arrive in school "disadvantaged".
Parents attitudes and quality of interaction with their child can play as important a part as school in defining a child's future

One of the strongest arguments for the French maternelle (nursery school) system, whereby all children are offered three years of full-time school with qualified primary teachers between the ages of 3 and 6 (99% take-up rate) is that this enables children from disadvantaged backgrounds to catch up on oral language and social skills, and irons out differences from home backgrounds in the early years.

The maternelle system is incredibly expensive however.

Bonsoir we have a system in England where the most disadvantaged are offered 15 hours "education" from the age of TWO! and full time from the age of four.

mrz - I am fully aware of the situation in England and it is nothing like as good at ironing out early years differences as the French system.

The difference Bonsoir is the last government decided that the "education" can be provided by staff who while holding excellent childcare qualifications aren't teachers (so are much cheaper and less likely to question the system)

I don't think that's the only difference (although it is a very significant one). There is a world of difference between a system that takes all children under its wing and has a clear objective of ensuring that they are all prepared in the same fundamentals of classroom behaviour, the language of instruction, fine and gross motor skills etc, and one that is trying to ensure the children at the bottom of the advantage pile don't slip through the net.

I am not a fan of the French system being fully comprehensive between the ages of 11 and 15, but I do think it does amazing things with very small children.

Grammars really would affect the achievement of people who didn't get in though - segregating off the most able would lower the attainment of the more 'average' pupils (this is proven statistically).

By far the best way of changing social mobility is EARLY intervention (age 2-4), establish the foundations, then primary schools and secondary schools can build on them.

These stats have been mishandled, as per bloodyusual.

Fewer than 200 kids on free school meals in the entire country get 3 As at A Level. Of those, how many even apply for Oxbridge? Especially if their schools tell them it's not for the likes of them, and besides, they can live at home and save money if they go to LSE or Manchester or wherever else is their hometown?

Well in England all children are entitled to 15 hours free "education" from the age of three but the arguement is that by providing such provision for all the "gap" is perpetuated therefore the introduction of a pre year for those considered in need. Soon we will start "education" in the maternity ward ...

I think that three hours a day, five days a week is a lot less than six hours a day, four days a week with an hour and a half of canteen lunch in the middle (so basically seven and half hours x 4 days). And of course, children from disadvantaged homes get low-cost childcare on Wednesdays too, thereby increasing the time they spend in a stimulating environment.

Who decides which children come from "disadvantaged homes" what is the criteria? purely on income?
I teach children from finacially disadvantaged backgrounds whose home environment is far more stimulating that that provided by institutionalised care and also children from finacially advantaged homes who lack any stimulation at home...

I can see disadvantaged homes from where I sit, mrz - out of my dining room window. Seventies tower blocks of social housing overlooking the périphérique. Our apartment building is in the same school catchment area and I know DCs in our building who go to maternelle at the local state school. My gardienne sent her son there (he is the same age as my DD). My gardienne (who lives in one ground floor room with her taxi driver DH and two children) has now sent her son to the local private Catholic school. Her son is not disadvantaged by local standards - he is fine.

'But its just plain wrong that shit schools can exist and bollocks up life chances so early on'

Even when comprehensive schools are providing a 'decent' education and churning out kids with 10+ GCSEs, life chances are still limited for many and always will be but it's no big deal to some. Many people are happy as long as they have enough money to buy a big telly and the latest fashion.

The FSM thing is a red herring - it tells you nothing. How many kids on FSM would even want to go to Oxford or Cambridge? How many in a bog standard Comp come to that?

Poverty of aspiration is down to so much more than the school system.

Bonsoir so all children who live in those 70s tower blocks are "disadvantaged" and doomed to educational failure?

mrz - they are all disadvantaged (no-one in their right mind would choose to live there if they had an alternative) but that of course does not mean they are all "doomed". Life will be harder for them to make a success of, that's for sure, but not impossible.

Yes, the intensive nature of the French educational system levels the playing field. However, there is another cultural aspect to school in France: you are not a proper French person unless you have been through the French educational system. Your school reports are national official documents that follow you through life; the exam board is the Ministère de l'éducation nationale. People adhere to the idea of the NC for all and that school imparts a body of knowledge that makes people into French men and women.

That has disadvantages, especially for the more ambitious, of course...

mrz, excellent point. I've taught rich kids where there wasn't one book in the house in which they grew up. There are many ways of missing out.

My point Bonsoir is that making judgements about a child's education based purely on their address is deeply flawed. Yes they may be socially and ecconomically disadvantaged but it doesn't mean they don't have parents who encourage them and provide stimulating experiences or that they will fail.
I work in an area of social and ecconomical deprivation but some of our children have professional parents and affluent homes but are deprived in other equally important ways.

Bonsoir how can it level the playing field if there are different starting points unless the system prevents those children who are already ahead at three from learning until everyone catches up

We all know rich people who don't read and poor people who read voraciously.

But material disadvantage and lack of opportunity to see the world beyond your own council estate and other materially deprived families, is a very real issue for children, and one that school can help to remedy.

mrz - an awful lot of French DCs are in childcare (crèches and garderies) before going to maternelle, and, as we know, institutional childcare is beneficial to DCs from under privileged backgrounds (a lot less so for DCs from more advantaged homes).

Of course it is immensely difficult to iron out all social differences - but there are ways of helping to do so. Providing different, income-based experiences of school in the early years in the English way is obviously less likely to do so.