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?

Candles, you talk sense.

Teachers LOVE bright and enthusiastic kids. That's why they went into teaching!!

A constant joy to stretch them.

That teachers in general love bright and enthusiastic kids doesn't detract from the fact that there's a large contingent idealogically opposed to any further advantage being extended to kids who they see as already "privileged" in some way, shape or form.

Secondary schools do a bit more than primaries with G&T but most of the money goes in admin at different levels. The DCSF (as they were known) squandered huge amounts itself, councils are even worse, money is also spent on seminars that are paid for out of G&T budgets and they further charge schools who end up paying out of G&T budgets for teachers to attend these talking shops.

In 2009 I provided some budget figures in a different thread. Out of over one billion spent on personalisation less than 15 million was allocated to G&T. Out of that 90% went in admin costs. What's worse is that G&T funding isn't ringfenced. Most LAs use G&T funding for individualised learning/personalised learning (which many confuse with promoting "social mobility").

From another of my posts on funding; "The amount per identified gifted child in 2007-08 was £7. That works out to about 90 pence per G&T child per year. But even 90 pence (or £7 if you will) isn't a fixed allocation...there is no requirement on any LA or school to spend even £0.01 on gifted children."

Some schools may spend a bit of their budget on the odd G&T activity and it looks like your school does. Some disguise other spending as G&T spend. It's all very messy.

What's commonly accepted is that G&T was originally started to prevent the drain of top performers to indies. It failed. What succeeded was the restrictions on indies awarding scholarships purely on academic merit. Their charity status was threatened till they complied with the government's goals on admissions/scholarships/bursaries. It wasn't G&T wot stemmed the flow.

I'm heavily involved in recruitment at a top law firm.

We bend over backwards to be fair and will certainly give more credit for 5 A* at A level to someone from an underprivileged background (which does not mean anyone from a state school) than we would to an old Etonian or someone from a top grammar. We actually like the grit that pulling oneself by ones bootstraps tends to demonstrate. The job here can be pretty grim at times and people who have not had it easy before starting cope with it well.

However, there are some things about which we can do nothing. We cannot make up for poor advice on A level subject or university. If someone has done A levels which are not purely academic (PE, media studies, business studies, drama etc)we have no evidence on which to base an assessment of their intellectual ability. Likewise, we cannot really trust the academic assessment of some universities. It is an unfortunate truth that a first from most ex polys in most subjects is not worth a 2:1 from a top 10 university.

We find that quite often with new recruits who have come through poorer schools we have to give remedial lessons in grammar and spelling (and these are clever people who have come through good universities with a minimum of a good 2:1). We couldn't give a damn about accent; but there's also the question of having to polish up inappropriate and sloppy ways of speaking to people

It is totally unfair that there are clever young people coming through with these disadvantages; but I don't see anything which would be expensive to fix, or which schools could not fix if they had the will and higher aspirations for the children they educate.

I don't think it's ideological objections, DadAtLarge- and I have a g&t dd myself.

I think it is simply that when teachers see how scarce the resources are to make children with disabilities/chronic illnesses/SN get access to even the most basic education, they don't put the extension and stimulation of g&t children at the top of their list of priorities. I wouldn't either. If there was a child with severe learning needs in my class and no money to help them with the most basic things, I would think that was priority no one. Our local LEA has hinted to the medical profession that they are not going to issue any more statements- which means no money even for the kind of child who cannot learn anything at school without specialist support.

It doesn't mean that teachers don't see that other children have needs too: but they also see how stretched the resources are.

cory, agreed on the resources and the distribution.

In fact, it's the teachers' job to make such priorities and it's what I would do if I were a teacher.

That's why no matter how much teachers may "love" having gifted children (or even G&T children as defined by the programme), I find it difficult to accept that there's either a lot of money for this area or that many G&T pupils are properly catered for. The more pupils in the class who need special teacher attention, the less attention the G&T get. I don't know why teachers deny there is a trade-off.

Re the ideological objections, hmmm, we have plenty of examples right here in MN as you know. Note that my claim isn't about all teachers.

Teachers LOVE bright and enthusiastic kids. That's why they went into teaching!!

Some love bright kids because they enjoy teaching them. For others the bright kid means less work - you can give the kid something to do and stick her in the corner while you do a 1-2-1 with a pupil who is very behind. Or use the bright kid as a TA. Listen, it may not happen in every school, but I've seen it happen often enough to believe it's fairly widespread.

Some very interesting posts here. The last 4 (DAL,cory, point and DAL again) all seem to dovetail to the difficulties and failures of state schools to meet the needs of the brightest pupils.

In a mixed ability school - the less able will appear to be the priority for extra resources, because the schools know that in comparison, the brighter kids 'will do ok'.

But, by just doing ok - they fail to fulfil their potential - sadly.

jack

couldn't agree more - the basic attainment targets are also failing children and terachers in state schools.

Target is 5 A-C's so where are the resources going to be allocated by the school?

The D grade students, to get then through to a C grade, so the schools' performance looks better.

OK teachers ARE going to be working to get all the kids to do well (generally, as teachers do want the kids to succeed) but there will be pressure to polish the STATS rather than push the bright kids.

DH was chatting about how some top Unis are finding B grade students from non-selective and non-private schools are much more successful than A* students from selective and private schools. Of course this should be obvious as if you manage to survive the distain of your peers, for being in any way academically bright, and you manage to get a B with the levels of support thrown at you, you truly are a survivor!

BUT, I firmly believe it is time to STOP holding the system completely responsible and start holding ourselves as parents responsible. Surely it is up to us to build aspirations into our children and it's time we started challenging bad parenting on a more regular basis.

DH (a teacher) also has aspirational problems at his school. He and other staff DO push all the students and expect A students to work sufficiently well to get As. However, not a term goes by without a parent complaining that the schools is pushing their child too hard, and isn't a B grade OK, if the child is 'happy' (read - stops moaning at me, the parent, and lets me get on with ignoring my child).

This is in an outstanding state school which parents do compete to get their kids into. If some of them can't even be bothered to have as high an aspiration for their child as the TEACHERS FGS, what hope is there for other kids, whose parents aren't even as concerned as these?

Excellent post bb99

pointissima, as an employer I feel your pain. Unlike your big law firm, I'm a small employer who doesn't have the resources to identify the potential in those pupils from poorer backgrounds. Quite simply we skip over them and take the "proven" bright ones.

bb99, you make some good points.

BUT, I firmly believe it is time to STOP holding the system completely responsible and start holding ourselves as parents responsible. Surely it is up to us to build aspirations into our children and it's time we started challenging bad parenting on a more regular basis.

Partly. No. Partly. Yes.

Very different issues. That some parents need a kick up the backside is no reason to not put pressure on the "system" to mend its ways and make a lot of changes. For example they could sack/reassign those opposed to provision based on children's needs rather than parents' bank balance. This is a cancer in our bank of "teaching talent" that we need to address as part of any solution. There are a lot of excellent teachers, enthusiastic and motivated teachers who aren't performing to their best ability because of others around them holding them back.

I agree with your last point, but how would you challenge "bad" parents (and support struggling ones)? And would you be prepared to withdraw extra support for the children of those "bad" parents who refuse to play ball?

I'm an American who's trying to get a better feel for the lay of the land (still stuck here and dd has reached school age). School reform is a big topic in the States as well but one difference between private/charter and state schools in the US which has not been discussed on this thread is the ability of private/charter schools to replace underperforming or otherwise unsuitable teachers. Do you think that contributes to the difference between private school results and state school results here?

@fivecandles: I've gathered on this thread that you teach at a sixth form college which has gotten 10 kids into Oxbridge this year. How many kids overall are leaving your sixth form? And how many enter each year?

Also @fivecandles: if you had 20 kids in your classroom, what fraction of your time and attention would you spend on the top quartile, the next quartile, the next one and the bottom quartile? And would you guess that's representative for the other teachers you know?

'doesn't detract from the fact that there's a large contingent idealogically opposed to any further advantage being extended to kids who they see as already "privileged" in some way, shape or form.'

I think this is absolute tosh. I've never seen or heard of anything quite so ridiculous as a pupil, teacher or parent.

And, as I say, I've worked in all sorts of schools for over a decade where kids have been supported by teachers to achieve all sorts of amazing results in all sorts of areas. There is nothing that thrills a teacher more than a success story especially if they've had a little part in it.

A teacher who was ideologically opposed to extending kids would be like a doctor who is ideologically opposed to curing illnesses!!

'What's commonly accepted is that G&T was originally started to prevent the drain of top performers to indies. It failed.'

Funny, because the statistics don't seem to support your idea that there is a drain of top performers. Let's remember that it's still less than 10% of all kids who are educated indepedently and this figure really hasn't changed much.

'For example they could sack/reassign those opposed to provision based on children's needs rather than parents' bank balance. '

I don't understand this point at all. Are you suggesting the sacking of teachers in private schools (and by extension the abolisment of the private sector) because otherwise who are thos teachers who teach according to parents' bank balance? Very confusing.

expat, to answer your question at least partly. 10 out of the 11 kids who applied got into Oxford or Cambridge this year which is a pretty good success rate. We have a very good programme of support which begins with screening and encouraging students with mainly A*-B at GCSE who are continuing to show talent and commitment at AS level to apply and then supporting them in weekly sessions which involves everything from stretching them in their particular subject, helping them with UCAS forms, preparing them for interview etc, etc. This is in addition to subject specific weekly extension lessons which are run in each department for A or B students who are aiming to pursue that subject at university but Oxbridge students are likely to do both as well as a whole load of other extra curricular activities. We also teach the Extended Project and again Oxbridge students often do this. BTW, most schools offer Oxbridge support even if they don't have the resources to offer the amount we do and schools in our area work together with us to provide trips to Oxford, talks from Oxbridge recruiters etc.

I'm not involved in this personally so I could tell you how many students were originally approached to apply to Oxbridge but I'm fairly sure it would have been significantly more than actually did. There are a number of reasons for this of which the main ones are probably as follows:

1.) Oxbridge courses are quite traditional and not to everyone's taste. Students often find a course or combination of courses (which Oxbridge often don't offer) which more closely matches their interests elsewhere.

2.) Many of our students choose to stay close to home for cultural and/or financial reasons. BTW we have 2 Russell Group universities 20 minutes away with good public transport and several more universities very near.

As for your question about fractions of time, this is actually quite a strange way of looking at teaching. Maybe this would be more relevant to a secondary school teacher (which I have been but am not at the moment). At 6th form level in my subject we don't really break down time and attention into different ability groups. I can't really see how you could. Just as we have particualr study sessions for able students, we have study support sessions for students who struggle in each subject so if a student wasn't keeping up because of absence or because they were finding something difficult, I could book them in for support. Again, this is common in 6th form colleges. Or I could arrange for them to come and see me or email me outside lesson time so I don't think I spend a disproportionate amount of time with students at the bottom of the scale.

I think at 6th form it's quite easy to let bright students dominate in fact esp since so much of lessons are discussion based so to avoid that I spread out questions and often get students to work on something in pairs or groups before going around and asking for a response from every student.

Most of the tailored feedback which really leads to progress comes from marking where I might write up to half a side of notes at the end of essay of strenghts and targets for improvment as well as marginal annotation. There are probably some bright students who end up getting more feedback because they are more likely to meet deadlines and those students who want to do well are more likely to seek advice and redraft and redraft coursework.

In all, I'd like to think that my time and attention is divided equally between all of my students. This is much easier to do in 6th form where there are few discipline problems and where students have made an active choice to be but, if anything, I'd say the most able are more likely to get more attention because they're so much more likely to participate in discussion and engage with their teachers as part of their interest in the subject and desire to improve and meet the entry requirements for university.

Thinking back to my time in secondary school, that probably tallies too although of course a lot of attention went to kids who were disruptive or silly and that attnention was actually not about academic achievement at all IYSWIM.

As I've said I've got really clear memories of my brightest students dating back over 10 years because their writing and comments were more likely to be original and interesting and I would have more interesting things to say to them in response rather than pointing to spelling mistakes or whatever which might be the focus for a very weak student. I can actualyl remember individual pieces of work from bright students from years ago and I can't really say that about any other studednts. These were the students who would stay behind at the end of the lesson just to chat or I'd have a chat to them as I'd give back work or whatever.

Again, this perception that there are loads of switched on kids just itching to get on in the world and being held back by teachers or 'the system' is ridiculous.

There is plenty of evidence that there is a marked difference in kids' academic achievement by aged 3 and schools and teachers are not miracle workers. They often cannot turn a kid from a disadvantaged background where there are no aspirations and where language and literacy and social skills are not developed from early on into someone who wants to learn.

Poorly performing schools are likely to be full of performing studnets who have probably been switched off education before starting school and struggle with basic skills.

IF there's even one kid in this school who has a hope of getting As or Bs that kid will be jumped on and encouraged like anything.

Schools which perform well are likely to have a large number of middle class kids from supportive and aspirational backgrounds and teachers in this sort of school will be well used to stretching the bright kids. There are many schools now which do things like get kids to take GCSEs early and then start A Level programmes.

Funny, because the statistics don't seem to support your idea that there is a drain of top performers.

My claim was that there was a drain which is what was sparked the whole G&T programme. I'd be interested in seeing your stats.

Let's remember that it's still less than 10% of all kids who are educated indepedently and this figure really hasn't changed much.
It's still about 7% but the intake has changed enormously. Indies used to take a lot of bright kids from the state sector and give them scholarships, but now they have to do a lot of means testing and provide financial help based on background rather than academic ability. That leaves a larger number of more able children in a state system that's not really designed to take best care of their needs.

Are you suggesting the sacking of teachers in private schools
You don't make improvements in the state sector by sacking private school teachers. It's in the state sector that below par teachers can continue blissfully till retirement. Union and other influences aren't as strong in private schools and besides, private schools are accountable to the market so have an incentive to stay sharp.

There are 500,000 teachers in the state sector. Chris Woodhead, the former inspector of schools, got flak for stating that 15,000 (3%) of those desperately needed sacking. Keith Bartlet claimed about 17,000 "below standard" teachers. Both of those were people in the industry with an incentive to play down the figures. The figure could be much higher than 17,000. In the last 40 years do you know how many of those teachers were sacked? Eighteen!. Not 18 per year. 18 in 40 years!

Keith Bartley, BTW, was head honcho of the GTC at that time. If he said 17K, you can safely double or triple the number.

You missed my point Dad. You said, 'For example they could sack/reassign those opposed to provision based on children's needs rather than parents' bank balance.'

and I didn't understand what you meant.

What teachers provide an education based on their parents' bank balance rather than their needs (unless you are talking about the existence of private schools)?

I also don't understand the points you're making about private school. The numbers going there are small relative to overall number of kids in education and have remained relatively static in decades. If anything, there is likely to be a dip over the coming years as a result of the recession. I also don't agree that the intake has changed at all. Scholarships and bursaries have always existed and they go to a minority. Its still largely the children of relatively well off and aspirational parents who go to private schools. Nothing's changed.

And I continue to dispute the following 'children in a state system that's not really designed to take best care of their needs.'

I don't deny that there are kid who are let down in state schools but I really think the kids who are really let down are those who leave with no qualifications at all or very few.

How do you account for the many thousands of kids who leave state schools with amazing grades every year and go on to A Levels and top universities and top careers.

Yes, yes, I know that kids from private schools are disproportionately represented in top universities and top careers but this is not a sign that state schools are getting things wrong; more a sign of how important class divisions continue to be in this country.

I also think you're hung up on issues that represent the state sector in a negative way but would make very little difference to the education of the vast majority of kids.

Even if there are 3% of teachers who are poor to incompetent (and I imagine you could say this about most professions TBH) most kids will not have enough contact with these teachers to have any real influence on their overall education. Good departments and good schools can and do take measures to compensate for a poor teacher.

And certainly as has been widely documented private schools have their quota of poor teachers too. They are more easily hidden because there are less issues with discipline and the kids are more likely to be hard working.

And frankly I don't set much store by what Chris Woodhead might judge an incompetent teacher.

I?ve got an offer to study Medicine at Cambridge in 2011 ? I go to a supposedly very good FE college that has tons of support for G+T and Oxbridge candidates in their prospectus. I can safely say that most of it was bullshit. All I was told was that I needed to apply early (you do anyway for medicine) and one teacher looked through my personal statement and added grammatical errors instead of getting rid of them. No interview practice or anything. Had to talk to my cat about why I wanted to be a doctor.

I?ve had many incompetent teachers during my state education and this includes a GCSE R.S teacher too dyslexic to spell my name, a GCSE Art teacher too high off Valium to remember it and a GCSE Maths teacher too hungover to say it. Plus a Biology A-Level teacher that failed half of my class (they were all predicted C or above). They were terrible teachers due to a lack of organisation, inability to explain even basic concepts and for their pupils despite revising struggling to meet their predicted grades. About 10% of my GCSE Art class passed and I was the first A in the Art for seven years. Only 2A?s were achieved my top maths set when 12 were predicted. 70% of pupils in my top set R.S passed (it is a very easy GCSE) and I was the only A.

I had to self-teach these subjects without any help or private tutors. I managed to get top grades despite the impoverished background and subpar education but I?d never wish it on anyone else. To claim that one of my private educated peers reading Medicine at Cambridge has worked just as hard as me is ridiculous. I doubt they were up at 2am reading mark schemes, writing 50 letters to GP?s and consultants begging for shadowing experience, stacking shelves to pay for the boiler to be fixed, nicking revision guides at GCSE, having to do their Personal Statement alone and choose their career path, A-Levels and University choices without any assistance.

It?s felt like I managed to walk into medicine despite being blindfolded by childhood poverty, lack of information, major discouragement and being hindered by the state sector.

I sound bitter because I am. I was told in Year 10 to consider nursing by a careers advisor since ?medicine is too hard for girls like you to get into?. Most of my friends from high school are pregnant or planning to be so within two years time.

The state sector isn't always magic and lovely. It's often shit, especially in crap rural high schools in the north of England.

Don'tknow I'm sorry you had a crap time.

I do think it worth hearing from young people more often than we do. It's fine teachers and parents piling in, but of course it's you guys who are on the coal face.

Congratulation son your success. I am sure you will do evry well.

Why an effective teacher matters is an interesting point of view. It's US based and more applicable to primary teachers.

DontKnowWhat your post illustrates why state pupils who get to Oxbridge often out-perform students who've had an easier ride there. Well done to you!

"How do you account for the many thousands of kids who leave state schools with amazing grades every year and go on to A Levels and top universities and top careers."

Tutors? [cynic]

DontKnowWhat congratulations on your offer! Wishing you good luck in getting the grades. Do hang around MN - there is a wealth of info and advice here if you need it.

So what is your assessment of DKW's experience, fivecandles? Do you think that it was extreme misfortune to have that many bad teachers in one childhood of learning or do you think that bad teachers are a bit more common than you care to admit?