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?

Point being that any sort of selection at 18 or at 11 is almost certainly going to further advantage the already privileged.

It's looking at bigger social factors and working with whole families that will make the difference.

LilyBolero until January I taught in a Foundation Stage Unit with an attached Children's Centre so have many years experience of pre school (birth to five in a socially and economically deprived area, hence the CC). I'm also a Senco so I'm familiar with children's progress throughout the school

I agree that it is absolutely necessary to start much earlier - there is no point expecting ANY university to even up the differences in education at age 17/18. That's not what it's there for.

But I still think - idealistic as that may be - that good, inspirational and most importantly aspirational teaching in the Infant and Early Years setting would do more to even things out than anything else. Naturally, this needs backed up by some hard, practical and therefore expensive and difficult changes. So, idealism shining brightly:

Let's start with a "Homework" club after school for those who don't have a quiet place to work, incorporating enough teachers/TAs/parent helpers/volunteers to listen to every child in there read - every day or other day. Same with maths - basics, repeated, like Kumon. The basics need to be second nature - however it gets into small heads, it needs to be repeated and reinforced. Songs, rhymes, timed table squares, repetition - whatever works.

Teachers who are free to teach, not deal with basic socialisation, would also help. Perhaps a breakfast club would be able to assist with some of the socialisation, whether that be the use of cutlery, basic table manners or just pleasant conversation, at an appropriate level.

Proper chances for running round in the playground, especially for boys. Keeping in should be an absolute last resort punishment in primary school - energy needs got rid of!

But absolutely none of this is any use unless teachers help their pupils to aspire. Nothing annoys me more than hearing or reading the phrase "it's not relevant to [them]. The "it" in question is usually some piece of knowledge that older and/or educated people would regard as fundamental - not because it is critical to surviving day-to-day but because it shows that you have thought beyond the basic, you have some shared history/culture/knowledge, you'll understand the references, just a bit more "You're one of us". Note I am not condoning any sort of "old boys'/girls' network" but what I am saying is that it gives a connection. Phrases from Shakespeare, the King James or Good News Bibles, the great poems (ancient and modern) are bound up in the language. If these are dismissed as "not relevant" then we lose something. Perhaps we lose the ability to appreciate and use expressive language, or precise language. Perhaps our vocabulary becomes restricted - and who would you prefer as a lawyer, a draftsman, an advertising copywriter - someone who could use language properly or someone who can just about manage textspeak? Why are we denying children the opportunity even to try?

I appreciate this is a polemic, and unlikely ever to happen. But going back to where I began, if there is no aspiration at home then it must come from school. To fail to expect the best is to fail the pupils.

Sorry I missed your part about it not being expected at pre school level perhaps you would like to discuss it with the government as unfortunately they seem to believe there is.

I'm now teaching children I previously taught in nursery and reception and without exception the children who began ahead of their peers remain ahead although the gap is slightly narrower.

And that's unusual if compared to national trends mrz where if you look at the research above the gap tends to widen.

It's interesting although depressing to note that children's performance at 5 is very similar to children's performance at GCSE and absolutely linked to their income only those ahead are more ahead and those at the bottom are further at the below.

So fivecandles, what can be done? Would it not be possible to offer the less privileged more at the early stages to level out the playing field later?

Also, how inevitable is this really? I have several friends from very unprivileged backgrounds who got into old-style grammars, too. They must have done so somehow.

But what criteria is used to decide who needs the help?
The government are offering pupil premium to children on free school meals but does eligibility for free meals mean that these children will necessarily struggle?

well mrz, you must then be aware that attainment of children really can't be extrapolated from abilities at younger ages, because of the variables. If you had done an 'expected' achievement of ds2, you would not have expected him to achieve ANYTHING. But he is now doing really well, had a good entry level assessment to school, and is on track. But his hearing gave him a rocky start.

Also, if what you are saying is that the entry level assssment gives a good idea of where the child will be at GCSE level, and this is related to income, then filling in the gaps at pre-school is the ONLY way to make a difference. Suggesting that this is not going to help would suggest that there is a more innate reason why people from lower income groups under-achieve, and once you go down that line, you might as well write them off.

x-post - I think that what is needed is intervention for children who need it, even from age 2, to fill in the gaps. From an economic point of view, you would have to focus this on the children who statistically need it the most (and this is probably going to be children from poorer households). Perhaps the solution would be to have it free to families below a certain income level, but available to others at cost?

I've seen children transform - and I've seen children really blossom and achieve highly, but it is true that at age 5/6 or so you can get an idea of where someone is going to be. Earlier than that, I don't think so.

There will always be exceptions but exceptions is what they are. It's no good talking about your friend Bloggs from down the road you have to look at what is statistically likely which is truly depressing.

Yes, we need to offer more at the early stages but formal education compounds the problem. Those children who have been exposed to language and literacy may well benefit but those who haven't won't and will be discouraged.

As I've said it's about working with whole families. It's fairly useless to expect kids to be reading books in school if they've not done the stuff at home which makes them ready for reading - singing, talking, thinking about letters, ENJOYING stories, developing a vocab (there's a marked difference in children's vocabularies aged 3 depending on parental income).

Educating parents would help.

I find it unforgivable that schools don't make more of an effort to reach out to parents before their children even start schooll.

'but does eligibility for free meals mean that these children will necessarily struggle?'

The stats say that mostly they will.

'Also, if what you are saying is that the entry level assssment gives a good idea of where the child will be at GCSE level, and this is related to income, then filling in the gaps at pre-school is the ONLY way to make a difference.'

No.

At some point you have to accept the enormous influence that parents have such that differnces are so marked at aged 3.
Schools do not operate in a vacuum and education is not just about what happens in school.

'Suggesting that this is not going to help would suggest that there is a more innate reason why people from lower income groups under-achieve, and once you go down that line, you might as well write them off.'

What do you mean by 'innate'? There are obvious social and economical reasons why people from lower income groups underachieve. Accepting that it is beyond the power of individual teachers and schools to change these is not the same as saying write them off.

No LilyBolero that is not what I'm saying. The ability on entry is not closely linked to income in fact some of the children with lower ability on entry have two professional working parents and years of pre school behind them

Well, I don't think the Pupil Premium will be enough, somehow, and fivecandles, are you saying you have experience with the whole-family approach, that it works? Also I still think that somehow the people I know who were rescued from book-averse homes by old-fashioned grammars shouldn't be written off as anecdote. If it is, then we seal ourselves off from imagining that things coudl be different.

The pupil premium won't cover the "negative increase" (new phrase being used in education) to school budgets.

The family worker is one of the first casualties of budget cuts

but mrz, those aren't the children this report is highlighting - what would benefit those children is the thing that has been axed by this coalition government - the guarantee of 1:1 help for children struggling. And of coure for children from affluent homes, there are more options, even down to getting individual tutoring.

There are some basic things schools could do; teach girls and boys separately for English/Humanities, teach the lower ability groups separately (having more able children in the class brings up everybody's standard, particularly children around the average).

But this study was talking about the percentage of Oxbridge students who had been on FSM. It wasn't talking about children from other socio-economic groups who may or may not struggle, and the reasons for this, though that of course is interesting!

Just had my old college annual magazine. It lists all the schools they visited this year. Hundreds and hundreds of state schools (and this is just a small college). What more are they able to do to try and persuade pupils to try?

As has been said already the study shows only 1% of children entering Oxbridge were entitled to FSM it doesn't show how many children who were entitled to FSM would have been accepted had they applied.

As a SENCO I'm totally opposed to teaching groups of children separately as it creates an under culture good teachers raise every child's standard as we have proven in my school. We also produce boys who are excellent writers against national trends and not by segregation.

mrz, my own ds1 is an excellent writer. BUT statistically it has been proven that boys and girls benefit from being taught english separately.

Also, the 'had they applied' is a bit of a red herring, because part of the problem is one of a lack of aspiration, so the lack of applications is related to this lack of aspiration.

Statistics can prove anything as we all know . When I say our boys are achieving highly I am talking year in and year out cohorts (many entitled to FSM) not one or two advantaged children so perhaps the answer is to get on with it and teach

AND, teaching separately needn't create an 'under culture' - but even if it did, perhaps an element of under culture is better than continuing to struggle - I would have thought that for those children the critical thing is to get them reading/writing etc etc, but a good school would not allow an 'under culture' to exist.

mrz, there's no point discounting statistical studies if they are done rigourously. And it is perfectly true that nationwide, boys are not doing as well in english as they should. Interetingly, the girls benefit from being taught it separately as well. Makes sense really, boys and girls can have very different outlooks on things, and certainly have different approaches (a lot of my work is with boys and it is perfectly obvious that they 'tick' differently).

Now that is a whole new study ...
Q Why didn't you apply to Oxbridge?
A Lack of aspiration
too simplified for my liking