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 is simplistic though - why do many students from some groups feel there is 'no point' in aspiring to do well educationally? And how can that be rectified. The question is simple, the answer may be less so.

"A properly functioning educational system holds open to individuals the possibility and the opportunity of becoming different from what they are," says Grobstein. "It is not a good idea to design educational systems for women or men which 'play to their strengths and avoid their weaknesses', because the goal of education ought to be transformation, perhaps even self-transcendence.
something to consider

Teaching separately does not avoid weaknesses, it simply recognises that girls and boys have different approaches. Avoiding weaknesses would be not teaching english to boys at all.

fivecandles - "Bonsoir, you can't compare the English and French systems."

What?

Why do you think so much money is invested in PISA if not because countries are intensely interested in comparing educational systems and outcomes in order to benchmark the best and improve their own?

'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.'

The statistics tell us that educational outcomes are already polarised by economic income BY AGED 3 and the gap WIDENS from here.

So grammar schools would by and large cream off the already advantaged just as they currently do. But since they only operate from age 11 the problems (and advantages) are already well ingrained by them.

'If it is, then we seal ourselves off from imagining that things coudl be different.'

That's silly. It's saying grammar schools are the only answer when in fact they by definition are providing an exclusive education to those who are already doing well.

There are lots of other ways of imagining that things could be differnet.

Bonsoir, it's largely a waste of money to compare systems. You cannot compare the education system of a country with a whole different culture, social system and language. As you've said France has a largely comprehensive system unlike England and a much simpler language. To assume that adopting some of the same strategies (i.e. early nursery education) in this country would achieve the same results is fatuous.

As I've already said there's lots of research that indicates early formal education is the problem and not the solution.

The people who are most put off by early school experiences are white, working class boys with summer birthdays the very people who are least likely to do well at GCSE and most likely to end up in jail later.

'BUT statistically it has been proven that boys and girls benefit from being taught english separately.'

Actually that's rubbish.

You can find just as much research to the say the opposite.

And in fact plenty of research to say that girls benefit from single sex education but boys are disadvantaged by it.

Remind me again which gender performs most poorly in English?

Ah yes, that would be the boys.

fivecandles - actually, as far as languages go, English and French are incredibly similar - comparisons between the speed with which it is reasonable for children to acquire reading fluency in Italian, Spanish or Finnish and English are a bit fatuous, but not between English and French.

Children are not in "formal education" at maternelle, which is the whole point - it is three years of ground work.

fivecandles, statistically, boys do worse in English the more girls there are in the class. That is a fact. You can argue the reasons behind it, but that is what the stats show.

'it simply recognises that girls and boys have different approaches'

Again, this is one of those statements that is often perceived to be the case but there's no good evidence for it and this assumed difference just reinforces stereotypes which are damaging for both genders.

The methods which are supposedly 'boy friendly' always turn out to be just examples of good practise which girls also benefit from and enjoy.

This is an interesting link

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/10/gender-gap-myth-cordelia-fine

And there have been some great books about this whole are recently.

Lots of compaigning about the increasing stereotyping of 'girls' and 'boys' toys since again girls enjoy and spend as much time playing with the lego and trains as the boys do if they are allowed to.

I think you'll find that's what I've just said Lilly.

What I'm saying is that single sex teaching does not help boys although it might well help the girls.

Oops, no, sorry just reread your post.

Your evidence please?

'The evidence on the benefits of single sex classrooms is inconsistent and inconclusive, especially in showing any impact on attainment. Single sex classrooms have often been introduced for a number of different reasons and so it is difficult to reach an overall conclusion on their merits. '

nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/genderandachievement/understanding/singlesex/

'Additionally, Younger et al. (2005) found that some boys-only classes became challenging to teach, with boys' behaviour worsening and laddish behaviour increasing:
"?in some schools, boys-only classes have become very challenging to teach, or stereotyping of expectation has established a macho regime which has alienated some boys." (p.7). '

nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/genderandachievement/understanding/singlesex/

You could find some research which shows different findings but as I said earlier there's no good evidence of any advantages at all for boys (although there is for girls).

This is also interesting

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/25/schools.gender2

'fivecandles - actually, as far as languages go, English and French are incredibly similar - comparisons between the speed with which it is reasonable for children to acquire reading fluency in Italian, Spanish or Finnish and English are a bit fatuous, but not between English and French.'

Sorry, but that's just not true.

'Children are not in "formal education" at maternelle, which is the whole point - it is three years of ground work.'

Yes, I think you missed my point. England does more formal learning younger than most other countries. And many argue this is counterproductive and in fact is partly to blame for the widening gap in educational attainment accordign to parental income.

There's loads more on this but this should give you some idea of why English is so much more difficutl than French. It's why we have more dyslexics in this country. Dyslexia is relatively unknown in countries where spelling is so much more logical like France.

'The English writing system is uniquely difficult because it has spelling and reading problems.
Other difficult alphabetic systems have only spelling problems.
To become even just moderately competent spellers of English, learners have to memorise at least
3700 words with some unpredictable spellings
(listed on the different pages of this website).
A little more than half of all English spelling difficulties are caused by four problems:
unsystematic consonant doubling like 'shoddy - body' and unpredictable spellings for the
EE-sound, the long O -sound and the two OO-sounds.

Other serious spelling problems are caused by unpredictable spellings for the sounds
Ur / er / ir, Au / aw, S, Sh and the unstressed half-vowel in endings (like
?er / -or / -ar or ?en / -on / -an).
No other European language has more than 1000 unpredictable spellings'

www.englishspellingproblems.co.uk/

This as well:

[http://www.ehow.com/facts_5135743_problems-learning-english-language.html]]

Try again www.ehow.com/facts_5135743_problems-learning-english-language.html

Evidence here

BTW, this is what drives me mad about education in this country. So much of it is based on what people assume to be true rather than actual research.

I live for the day that policy is based on evidence.

"Overall, the results imply that in primary schools at least, boys would benefit greatly from being taught English in single sex classes, which would have little effect on girls' outcomes, whilst in maths and science, different policies would benefit boys and girls: boys would be better off in a more female classroom, whilst girls would be better off in an all female classroom.

"However, it is not possible to increase the proportion of girls for both boys and girls, implying that a mix of the genders is optimal in both maths and science."

There is a rigorous statistical study for you.

Hmm, research that was 5 years old in 2009.

If you look at my links there's no conclusive evidence either way.

The research was done a couple of years ago.

There's no point being all 'there's no study' and then just being 'oh, that one doesn't count'.