Who gets the best jobs?

[fizzyfanta]

I wonder if anyone watched this programme on BBC2 last night.

Whilst I appreciate that children from poorer backgrounds are not exposed to the same resources as those who have been privately educated, I cant help think that sometimes,these children are let down by their own parents and possibly their schools for not giving them enough courage to make them believe that 'they can be who they want to be'. Surely, the whole thing is being generalised and private education is being used as a scapegoat for the failures of the state system?

I read recently of some research that demonstrated that parental involvement in education was of much greater impact than either the school or the child's own application in adding value to a child's school achievements.

Which supports what you say, Litchick.

Though presumably parents who are highly involved in their DCs education also, on average, apply themselves more to getting their children into better schools and demonstrate a good work ethic.

Well, I'm still wondering what these things are that state school teachers could 'learn' from the private sector.

Seems to me that the reasons for the success of the private schools are almost entirely the things that make them private: charging fees and selecting and all that that entails. State schools can't do these things. State grammar schools do select and do compete with the very best private schools in terms of results.

It feels a bit like having a set 1 Maths teacher comparing her GCSE results with the teacher who has been teaching set 5 all year and suggesting that the set 5 teacher has something to learn from her!!

It's all about context.

It amazes me that people and esp politicians assume that a school that performs well is somehow inherently better than a school that performs badly.

A school that performs exceptionally well will almost certainly have an exceptional cohort and likewise the schools languishing at the bottom of the league tables are almost certainly comprehensives in deprived areas.

Not so much teachers - they work within the parameters they are given.

But I do think the sector itself could learn some useful things.

More sport.
More competition.
More academic rigour in respect of certain things.
More flexibility re curriculum.

That said, I think the private sector could learn some thngs from the state sector too.

More sport?? Difficult without playing fields and swimming pools and sports halls. Difficult if your students are malnourished or obese. Difficult with the pressures of league tables. Difficult when the Govt is threatening to get rid of your sports co-ordinator.

I don't know what you mean about more competition. I'm not sure my dcs' school has more competition than the local state school and I don't know that competition is such a good thing anyway esp if the losers are always going to be the losers.

Difficult to enforce 'academic rigour' without supportive parents as I've outlined above. And if you've got a class with students with SN and/or behavioural problems.

Don't know what you mean about a flexible curriculum. Gove, with his EBacc, is pretty much arguing for a rigid and traditional curriculum when we have had quite a lot of flexibility in recent years.

Why is it 'patronising' to suggest that the state sector might learn from the private sector? The private sector certainly looks to the state sector for ideas.

There is also an initiative at the moment encouraging Grammar schools to learn from leading comprehensives and vice versa. Is this patronising? To whom?

Have you asked yourself why private (and grammar) seem to have a higher threshold for A'level entry?

Maybe it's because they believe that GCSE's are the preparation for A'level study and the gap between GCSE c grade and a decent grade at A'level is too big. And are honest enough to admit it.

I have several friends with dc's with various SEN's in 'main stream' (and even selective) private schools. They get fanastic support - which they believe they wouldn't get in a state school.

I repeat, what do you think they could 'learn'??

It is patronising for the reasons I've already said.

The main reasons for the success of private schools is because they exclude children whose parents are not able to pay or who do not meet academic requirements or who are not suffiently motivated.

These are not things that state schools can or should 'learn'.

5candles - obviously I don't believe that 'selection' accounts for all of difference in performance between private and state schools. (unless you know of research that can prove it).

There are some state schools very open to working with private schools (at a local level) especially when it comes to motivating and stretching the brightest pupils. I know of a couple of state schools, who benefit from Oxbridge application expertise, for example.

I also think private schools tend to be good at managing ability setting and streaming (especially managing parental expectations). If I was a HT of a comprehensive - I would be interested in chatting to a private school HT about it, anyway.

If you close your mind and say - "there is nothing to learn" - what do you achieve?

Selection accounts for the vast majority of the difference in performance for blindingly obvious reasons.

I can't believe anybody would need this to be proven to them.

Can you honestly not see how excluding all students except the top performers in challenging exams and then interviews with parents able and willing to pay thousands of pounds of fees each year would not lead to students getting good results. Add to this small class sizes, supportive and aspirational parents, nightly homework, no discipline problems and v few behavioural problems.

If there was a school who did not get mostly A grades with this school state or private they realyl would have to be enormously incompetent.

'Have you asked yourself why private (and grammar) seem to have a higher threshold for A'level entry? '

Are you for real Jack Star?

As long as private schools and state grammar schools are oversubscribed they can be as selective as possible. If there are 5 places for every 10 applicants then they can take the TOP five.

You do understand that comprehensives are not allowed to do that don't you?

You do know that in this country there is a legal duty to educate children up to the age of 16 and that they are then allowed to do A Levels if they meet a minimum requirement?

What do you think would happen if state schools were suddenly allowed to educate only children who were rich and/or able?

Do you honestly think that a state school would get worse results than a private school if it were allowed to use the same admissions criteria?

As it happens my college has just got 10 kids into Oxford and Cambridge and we have a programme for gifted and talented students in each department. We also cater extremely effectively for students with less ability including students with SN who, unlike our nearest private school, we have a legal and moral duty to accept.

So, no, sorry, as a teacher in the state sector I don't feel I have anything that I would want or be able learn from my kids' private school about how to teach better in the state sector even though I recognize that they do a great job.

As I said, it's all about context.

Another reason why it's patronising is because those private schools and grammar schools who have something to 'teach' the state schools have also creamed off the students who might well have improved the grades of their nearest state schools.

"You do know that in this country there is a legal duty to educate children up to the age of 16 and that they are then allowed to do A Levels if they meet a minimum requirement?"

Maybe the minimum requirement needs looking at?

Sixth Form colleges like yours benefit from economies of scale and can be more supportive of Oxbidge entry. Smaller comprehensive sixth forms are not always so fortunate. Do you think they should turn away private school help if it's offered?

It does seem strange to me that you pay good money to send your dc's to a private school - yet you seem to think that it offers them little more than separation from the distraction of less well supported and less able pupils.

I am working with people considered by many (including that twat on the programme) to be at the bottom of the food chain at the moment - long term unemployed people.

Their aspirations, in general, are truly shocking. I would be pleased if any of them said they would like to be Cheryl Cole.
They have been failed by so many things, it is hard to know where to start.

I don't know what the solution is. But the creation of divides and inequality, I know, doesn't help.

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/student/article6993984.ece

This is a good article by a barrister called Charlotte Pickering which highlights some of the problems touched on in the programme.

I really does seem to be all about aspiration and the aspiration of those around you have for you (e.g parents and teachers.)

I went to a state school myself but was lucky enough to have aspirant parents who pushed me towards university. I felt so sorry for some of the children in the programme. Particularly the one whose parents said there was no way they were going to university because of the debt :(

'Maybe the minimum requirement needs looking at?'

Er, why?

Again, are you suggesting that we should 'learn' from the private sector is how to be more elitist?

Private schools can boast that they get A and B grades with mainly A and B students but the sector gets A and B grades with A, B, C and D students.

'It does seem strange to me that you pay good money to send your dc's to a private school - yet you seem to think that it offers them little more than separation from the distraction of less well supported and less able pupils'

But it's not 'little more'. Being educated in small classes of children who are hard working, well behaved, aspirational and generally able is enormously valuable. Don't get me wrong my kids' school is great but it is great because it is private and selective and not because the teachers or the school is inherently any better than its neighbouring state school. It is not a particular insight that makes them get better results that they can pass on to other schools it is the fact that they select students who are able to do better for all sorts of reasons.

If my students all came in with B+ grades and well off and aspirational parents and I could kick them out if they stopped attending/performing then I'd be really amazed if they didn't come out with all A grades too.

As it happens my subject got over 50% A*-B at A Level with a cohort of 70 even though I reckon about half came in with only a C in that subject at GCSE. This is much better value added than the next door private school even though their results were better.

fivecandles, although these things are a contributing factor not being tied to the National Curriculum can also mean that there is a creative approach & lessons can be truly inspiring.

I wish my children were in this school for example:

www.baldworm.com

Academic and demographic selection does contribute significantly to the outcomes at private schools as does the money (smaller class sizes etc). These schools do however have other advantages over state schools

• less government interference on everything from exclusions to curriculum
• no imposed cap on achievement (state schools have little incentive to have a Y6 child perform higher than a 5A in KS2. With the time trade-off it makes sense for the teacher to concentrate on those 3a and 4c children she can push up to a 4b)
• less union activity cramping the management
• more freedom on hiring of staff and management. Indies can and do hire entrepreneurs, engineers, other professionals if those people have the knowledge, enthusiasm and ability to deliver
• less wastage of money from levels of beauraucracy at local government
• less involvement with local govt on everything from hiring a head to whether you should close shop (because of changing local demographics). A head I know spent the equivalent of many days to defend her school against closure!
• less pandering to OFSTED's latest whims on what makes for an outstanding school

But, yes, the biggest advantages indies have are their ability to select pupils and ... not having to implement government social policies. The latter - and the chopping and changing in govt policy - is a huge cost to the state sector. State schools' performance needs to judged against the sums they spend on this.

Boo, Charlotte Pickering writes well, thanks for bringing her article to my attention.

It's shocking that her comp had no idea about law as a career and rewarded her interest with sneers, jokes and derision.

Some of those things may make a little bit of difference but as I keep saying the biggest reason is the selection.

The evidence for this is that state grammar schools which also select by ability (but this very closely mirrors parental wealthy)compare very favourably with the results of private schools (and the students who attend these go on to outperform the students from private schools once at university).

As for the not being tied to the NC thing, well, a lot of the big private schools pretty much do follow the NC and they will be encouraged to stick to the traditional EBacc subjects more than ever now. In fact, most private schools (and state grammar schools) have a much more traditional and less progressive curriculum than state schools.

Whereas I think you'll find the creative approach and inspiring teaching and learning much more alive and well in state schools than in private schools where teaching approaches often hasn't changed much for decades.

The idea that you could try the methods used in private schools homework and all in most state schools is laughable.

I do speak with considerable experience as a teacher in the state sector but with children in the private sector. And I don't want to give away my whereabouts but I've been into many, many schools of both ilks in various capacities (teacher, parent, consultant) in various parts of the country.

I also find the idea that teacher somehow hamper children's aspirations and abilities in the state sector bizarre. In fact, teachers leap on any sort of talent and push, praise and encourage often because they're so delighted to have any at all.

Huge amounts of money and resources are aimed at G & T children but also at the C/D borderline kids for obvious reasons.

Teachers give up hours and hours of time voluntarily for those students who want to learn and show special ability or motivation.

This year alone I've spent hours as part of a huge campaign to get a clever girl (straight As at AS Level) to stay at college but she still left to become a hairdresser!! There was absolutely nothing I could do. I've spent a long, long time with a clever boy who is badly underachieving to try and get him not to leave and improve his attendance. He's still here but just. I'm competing with his mother who says she admires him for going out all night every night!!

fivecandles, someone's been pulling your leg about huge amounts of money and resources for G&T. I've a long history of posts in the G&T section on MN, I know more about the G&T program than most teachers (and most G&T Coords and Leads as well) and have had the opportunity to see its so called implementation in various schools.

There's sweet bgger all for G&T kids. Most schools pay the programe just lip service, many teachers are hugely antagonistic towards the "GiTs" and there are numerous, numerous examples right here on MN of teachers who've demonstrated they don't have the vaguest idea of what G&T is about. Forget teachers, our LA* still hasn't finalised their G&T document ... and that's despite having my help! (It's been YEARS and our LAQS is still in draft form.)

Teachers may push, praise and encourage the brighter children, but their job is clear: concentrate your limited time on the ones who're behind and with 30 kids in the class you're bound to have a few of those.

There is nothing like a state school to average kids out. These schools have been doing it for yonks and have it down to fine art now. The funny thing is they don't even realise how skewed they and the system are.

Your experience is very different from mine and that of my colleagues.

I have about 15 years working as a teacher in the state sector in various compehensives in different capacities and now at 6th form level.

I do not recognize the picture you paint.

I still remember the student who I taught in my first year of teaching who got 9 A*s while this year my college has got 10 kids (who've come through state comps) into Oxford and Cambridge.

But I have also personally been into schools to deliver sessions to G & T kids and they've come into my college. This was in addition to the G & T programme within their schools. I also taught a twilight GCSE to G & T kids from local schools in addition to their normal GCSEs a few years ago.

BTW I work in a very deprived area where many schools perform well below the national average.

I accept that sometimes the money and resources are bady allocated but you cannot deny the money is there.

It is not true that the job of teachers is to concentrate only on kids who are behind.

As I say most teachers are delighted to discover a gifted child in their class and give up their time willingly to help.

'There is nothing like a state school to average kids out. '

I find this offensive and bizarre. Where is your evidence? I went to a state comp and have taught in many and although I've taught many hundreds of kids I've not met one who has been 'averaged out'.

Certainly not the 10 kids we've got into Oxford and Cambridge this year who have all come from state comps (with As and A*s) and I don't really feel that personally I've been 'averaged out'.

I think the mistake of a lot of people is to credit schools and teachers with a lot more ability to change children (for better or worse) than is actually possible.

In fact, you need to look at pupils' achievement in context and particularly in relation to their parents' educational achievements and their income because sadly these are still the biggest factors affecting a child's academic performance.

There is a marked differnce in educational achievement at age 3.

I could give you the name of the kid in my first year of teaching who got 9 A*s and tell you what he did for his speaking and listening assessment which got full marks although this is well over a decade ago.

But equally I could tell you what my cleverest students are reading at the moment.
And no I'm not an exceptional teacher. I've had conversations with all of my colleagues about all of these kids at every school and college I've worked at since beginning teaching. And my college provides G & T sessions in every department for A and B kids who are thinking about pursuing those subjects at university every week and Oxbridge weekly sessions. And so do local schools.