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?

It's foolish to assume that if you take a bunch of kids at age 3, then the distance between the most able and the least able will be retained throughout their education. Children go at different rates, and it's not implausible that a child at a higher level of ability at age 3 might naturally plateau (without being 'held back') whereas the child who has it all to learn may accelerate.

I see it all the time in the teaching I do - children who start earlier and children who start later are often at the same stage at age 11 or so.

LilyBolero - gosh I do so agree that the learning rate varies throughout childhood. And that children, like adults, sometimes focus on one aspect of learning to the detriment of others and will forge ahead in one area for a while. I often think this about early reading in the UK, which seems to be a national obsession - I meet English children who can read very fluently at 5 but don't seem to be able to do anything else at all!

Bonsoir as are lots of English children.
I would dispute that instituational childcare is more beneficial for all children from under priviledge backgrounds than it is for all childrenb from finacially advatage backgrounds. I think it is a very dangerous assumption to make.
The children I see entering school with the greatest difficulties are often those who have spent longest in childcare.

I think we may be losing focus here. The question isn't 'are there problems?' because we all know there are problems. The quesiton is whether a well-run academically selective state-funded school system could remedy those problems. I think it could, and I think in the past it clearly did, however problematic the current incarnation of state grammars. In Australia there are selective state schools in all capital cities which give immigrants in particular a wonderful chance of a topnotch education, and still in this country many state grammars outperform private schools, and are the ONLY state schools which do. MumInScotland, why can't we accept the principle and work to make the entry system more just? And also why should everyone receive the same, academic education? Most children aren't academic. Why should they be? Nonacademic should NOT mean worse. Again in Oz there are the Tech Schools, which can be excellent.

mrz - "I would dispute that instituational childcare is more beneficial for all children from under priviledge backgrounds than it is for all childrenb from finacially advatage backgrounds. I think it is a very dangerous assumption to make.
The children I see entering school with the greatest difficulties are often those who have spent longest in childcare."

Yes, I agree that long periods in institutional childcare often correlate with difficulty at school. That does not mean that institutional childcare is not beneficial to children from materially disadvantaged homes.

Well-run academically selective state funded schools exist but are 'opt in' in the first instance. Very many children who would no doubt benefit from what they offer don't even consider them.

In Essex you have about a 1 in 3 chance of getting into some of the best schools in the country. The remaining 2/3 of 'bright and aspirational' children could fill a few more schools between them. Would those kids do better if there were more Grammars than they do in the Comp system? I think they would.

There is a very thin line between geek and freak in the Comp system - majority rules and all that.

LilyBolero just as it is foolish to assume the able children starting school will plataeu and won't be the ones leaving school at the top of their class because many many do.

Anything from poor language skills to behavioural difficulties, too tired to learn. Of course it isn't all children just as not all children who live in finacially impovershed circumstances will have difficulties.

mrz, that would be foolish, but I wasn't making that assumption. I was simply pointing out that it is well worth putting the investment in at a young age (2-4), because even if there is an existing gap, it is not insurmountable.

You seemed to be suggesting that giving education to all at this age would perpetuate the gap, but I think at this age it is eminently possible to bring children to a place where they are able to fulfil their potential. Later on it is not so easy.

But pickledsibling, that's just Essex. And Bucks, Kent etc, but what about Oxford, where it's a postcode lottery? Or some parts of London? Surely a system whihc aims to create schools for an academically able group should be nationwide?

If you trust the PISA ratings France (22) is slightly above the UK (25) a score of 496 compared to the UK 494 for reading and 497 to the UK 492 for Maths - 498 compared to the UK 514 for science

Bonsoir - I agree with you about focussing on one area - children have such massive brain power that you can definitely artificially boost one part of the brain, and this is not necessarily a good thing (I'd much rather a child had a more rounded education).

Interesting that in other countries they start formal education (ie reading) later, but by age 11 are ahead of the UK children.

Things I think the kid need to learn early are;
appropriate classroom behaviour
getting on with other kids
turn-taking and sharing
listening
speaking
how to absorb information, and retain it
role play
basic gross and fine motor skills
which way up a book goes, and which way the pages go - ie start to finish- amazing how many kids don't know this
how to talk about what they see/hear/feel/taste
how to express their feelings
and a love of learning and an excitement about learning.

No LilyBoler I'm suggesting that social and ecconomic deprivation may not be the best measure for providing early support

mrz has a point here.

in fact in UK there are very few very poor people. They are just poorer than others, but not absolutely poor, homeless, starving. Most people have internet, tv, food, clothes, place over the roof, books, and prospects. All have access to libraries and education centers.

Its hence not necessarily the issue of wealth. I said before that at my sons DS the poorer people usually invest more time into their kids, as they realise that grammar is the only way for them. Richer parents have a back-up plan. Its not wealth related.

The problem, amongst others, might be, that there is no culture of parents actually sitting with kids, checking homework, relying too much on school reports, progress, and assurances that the school does what is best for your child.

This is not dependent on wealth, but on attitude. Middle classes fall victim to it too, as do indeed upper classes, as even on this forum some mothers said that "private schools are good for you as they claim to find the right place for your child in secondary school, suited for your child".

Its foolish to rely on private school to tell you that your child is not bright enough for Westminster School - as its likely that the children who are, are indeed receiving extra tuition at home anyway (despite being at private prep schools).

Perhaps to improve the system, you need to start of with the young ones, and with educating their parents too, so that they do find time to sit and do homework, to order bond books, to investigate if there are grammar schools, and what one needs to do to get in (just enter MumsNet.com).

If that would be the case, then perhpaps you could delay the need for grammar schools till GCSCEs, which we could say is the universal required education level in this country. Afterwards kids could go various ways.

Its a complex issue. Also nobody said that grammars and good comps cannot co-exist.

but mrz, what bonsoir was suggesting was more of a uniform education at that age. I was responding to your comment where you said
"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"

My point is that at this age, children DO catch up, because they can accelerate/plateau. Later on the catch up becomes impossible. It simply isn't true that the only way to close the gap is by holding others back. Think about learning to walk - children who walk later often miss out the stages of wobbling, needing to hold hands etc. Ds1 walked at 11 months, ds2 at 21 months. By age 2 they were equally steady, running around etc, no difference in physical development.

But try closing the gap later on (educationally) and it is a lot harder, because the fundamentals are not there, the child is more resistant to learning (unless the foundations for learning are in place).

The government report states

There is no single factor that determines attainment, but good quality early years provision is important

No one factor is the key to enhancing child cognitive and behavioural outcomes in the long term. It is the combination of experiences over time that matters:
?
a good early years home learning environment;
?
a good quality pre-school; and
?
a more effective primary school.

A child who has all three of these experiences is more likely to show improved cognitive and social outcomes compared with children that have two, one or none of these experiences

I think that for some children the position is almost a form of negative selection at the moment. I have family in S Wales in a deprived area where the local (well regarded comp) offers a construction stream (mainly boys) and childcare stream (mainly girls) at GCSE. This is not limited to the less academic sets but appears to be across the board. These kids are not even being given the choice to do the more clearly academic subjects that would give them more options for further /higher education. Its like the education system is tying their laces together before they start running the race.

As a starting point how about offering all children who have the academic ability a full range of rigorous subjects and for those who want to go down a more vocational route proper structured vocational training.

I also feel really angry about the shiney new academies near where I live in central london who only get about one third of kids through 5 gcse's a-c. I am sure that is a gross underperformance and that the cohort is more academically able than that.

I have the "luxury" of being able to choose to send my kids private if I am not happy with the state provision but I know most people don't.

But Lily, things like gross and fine motor skills aren't 'learned'; they are wiring. Boys in particular are often late in acquiring the latter. And I think the whole 'how to handle a book' thing has been a huge red herring too; learning to read is sensible, but I'm not sure it's be n helped by all the book-holding.

I may be in a minority here, but I also think expressing their feelings might be over-rated. I remember a horrible era when dd was always telling me that it gave her cold pricklies when I said things like 'that was rude to Grandma' or 'Time to clean your teeth'.

Who sets up these criteria anyway, and why? In consultation with whom?

Yes they can plataeu LilyBolero (although as a teacher I rarely see this happening, more often other children have spurts and catch up )
All the data produced is based on the expectation that those children who "score" highly on entry will continue to do so and over a given period will make "x" amount of progress.

Bonsoir, you can't compare the English and French systems. In fact, in England we start formal education earlier than most other countries and this is considered to be part of the problem in that children from poorer backgrounds are ALREADY disadvantaged and not ready for this sort of formal learning. So the kids who have already learnt their letters and have books and songs in the house fly on starting school and the kids who don't are immediately discouraged, don't get it, compare themselves and are compared with the other kids, lose self-esteem and so on.

In France there is much less formal learning and the language is much easier to pick up. The complexity of the English langauge compared to others is a reason why we have so many more dyslexics comparitvely.

Here's a link to the findings of some of the research. It's been around for ages though

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6740139.stm

sieglinde - they may well be wired, but, for example, in order to wire up the bit of the brain that gets wired up by splodging paint all over a piece of paper, the child actually needs to be given the opportunity to do so. They need to be encouraged to play outside so that they can wire up their co-ordination. That's where early years settings can really help. I remember very well our wonderful playgroup leader saying that children NEEDED to scribble on paper, so that they learnt what it felt like to move the crayon freely across the paper. Many children don't even get to do this (for whatever reason).

Book-holding -you should speak to some primary school teachers if you think that isn't important. My friends who are primary teachers in a mixed intake school (my kids' school) say that it is very hard for children when a book is an unfamiliar object - so many assumptions are made - which way up it goes, the fact that the pictures relate to the story, the fact that you start at one end and progress through page by page. Things that are taken for granted by parents who read to their children, but it is a very real problem for some children who start school never having seen a book. And this comes from teachers.

Likewise, talking about feelings - it's about being able to understand that it's ok to feel what you're feeling. If you have a child who is feeling really cross about something, it's good for that child to understand that feeling cross is OK, and the reason they're feeling cross is because of xyz. Otherwise they can be very distressed by the feeling, and think it is 'wrong' to feel that, and that isn't helpful.

The list I posted wasn't an official list of criteria - it's what I would hope that a child would learn/acquire before going to school, either from parents or from a pre-school setting.

Mrz - I'm really talking about preschool here - with 4 kids at various stages of schooing, and a teaching background as well, I do understand the idea that a child with a certain attainment on entry would be 'expected' to attain a certain level later on. I don't think this is true at pre-school, there are too many variables. When ds2 started pre-school he couldn't speak, he had a significant speech delay due to hearing loss. But on school entry he is at the top end of the class, and speech problems are non-existent. Hearing still variable. So in my mind it's about getting kids to that point where they are ready to go into the school environment, and equipping them to learn, so that a bright child from a deprived background (whatever definition of deprivation you're using) IS able to fulfil their potential.

This is revealing:

'Despite the non‐comparability of the ALSPAC sample it seems clear that
socio‐economic inequalities in education outcomes widen throughout
childhood, at least from the age of 3 up to age 14, but then appear to narrow
somewhat thereafter. It is interesting to note that by the time young people
reach GCSE the relative position according to income quintile is quite similar
to that revealed in cognitive tests at age 5 although the top quintile is
somewhat further ahead (and the bottom two quintiles each slightly further
behind). These differences translate into quite stark differences in
qualification attainment ‐ for example, 72% of the top income quintile gain 5
GCSEs grades A* to C including English and Maths, compared to only 27% of
the bottom quintile.'

www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/Inequalities%20in%20education%20outcomes%20among%20children.pdf