Financial Times Top 1000 Schools

[Xenia]

398 of the top 1000 are independent
Of the top 100 schools 80 are private and 19 grammar. Only one is a comp but it is a partially selective comprehensive.

(England only)
My older children's schools are 5th, 24th and 35th, not too bad.
www.ft.com/schoolmap-2011
The % ho get A or A* is proper subjects is a good measure and the fact they give the position in 2009 and 2008 too so you can see if a school has just had a bizarre year.

she'd only been at her last school 5 weeks when she gave her command performance at the Tory conference

'it was a struggling school, battling to improve after a damning Ofsted report, and the governors were furious with their new deputy head for attracting negative publicity'

'Last month the school's closure was announced. The chair of the governors has blamed Birbalsingh's speech for causing a collapse in pupil applications, which prompted the closure, but she denies any responsibility: "I don't want to talk negatively about the school, but come on, it takes years for a school to gain a certain reputation."'

(She would say that, wouldn't she . And would any school have kept her on after what she said?)

Agree with Joan - KB is a prat

She may well be a prat, but schools and DCs like that exist. Unfortunately Xenia sees it as a blueprint for all comprehensives! (Or I think she does)

Of course they do, or there wouldn't be the huge angst every year about so many children not getting any of their choices but being shovelled sideways into a school they & their parents don't want

She (& her book) aren't the best publicity for the problem though

Maybe though, we need more people to speak out.

The teachers at the school where I volunteer say dreadful things about the system, the school and the parents...but only in the confines of the staff room.

I think I've said repeatedly all over the thread that 50% of children at good universities come from state schools. I have never said all comprehensive schools are bad. I certainly wouldn't want a child of mine anywhere near one for a massive raft of reasons but I have never said trhey are all bad. Parents ensure they aren't by picking schools by house price, class and religion.

My DS was at a highly selective, single sex independent boarding school. His headmaster's advice was that "if you love your subject and really want to explore it seriously, try for Oxbridge. If you "need" a 2:1 for career purposes and want to have a ball as a student doing lots of enjoyable CV-enhancing activity, go for Durham, Bristol, St Andrews, York, Exeter etc. You'll still need to work hard but you'll have the time to shine outside the lecture theatre and seminar". We hear all these stories about lack of ambition in State schools. It seems to be called realism at this private school. The boys the headmaster was talking to (in 2009)were pretty much all expected to get 3 or 4 A grades at A Level. They split 50:50 about which route to take.

And that's why we need to hear how they (and indeed older mumsnet posters) are doing in terms of career and earnings 10 and 20 years after they leave university not just look at A level and degree results and places they went.

I think that KB would have had more credibility with the general public if she'd gone to the papers with her story rather than a Tory Conference. When I listened to her speech I felt she was just like a politician trying to score points by using her story.

I know for a fact that what she recounts is true in a lot of schools, as I have heard it from teachers themselves who teach in school like this. It's a disgrace.

I think we should all speak out more and do something about it. Not sure what though.

The discipline thing is not the fault of teachers and schools. If kids really don't know how to behave which some don't what can you do? It's almost impossible to exclude a kid permanently and even then they usually end up at another school. If you haven't got the support of the parents you either end up with them in constant detentions or sitting outside your classroom. But you can't have more than 1 sitting outside a classroom at any time. And you still have to get the buggers their exams for your league tables.

It does amaze me how some people think that schools and teachers are in a position to cure all society's ilss.

But why can't we just make it easier tyo exclude them then? They can in the private sector and then those who no one wants go into special schools for trouble makers. Why should it be so hard?

Why couldn't a school hire/call security and have them taken to a special room if sent out of a lesson?

Sadly there is some merit in what Xenia is saying. If c50% of students at Oxbridge / RG universities are from the independent sector where only c7% of the population go without being a statistician there is something of an imbalance here.

There are very bright kids in the state sector who also have the A level grades to prove it but the question is WHY are they not getting the places.

Is this because of

1. personal statements
2. "people like us" amongst admissions tutors
3. schools attended (repeat of above but worth repeating)

Reassured to read outrage and opinions throughout this thread but am seeing the results in uni offers going around this year.

Xenia, I don't know if you were replying to me. The headmaster was being careful to suggest universities which major employers take seriously. He did not do the "best course" lecture which I'm really leery about. If the "best" accountancy course is at Brighton University

but PwC or KPMG don't recruit there it's career limiting to study there.

Actually I know a secondary school that does exactly that Xenia, has a detention centre in its grounds. Instead of excluding kids, they get chucked in there and it is a boot camp. Nobody wants to go. It's quite effective.

LEAs have a legal duty to educate children to the age of 16. If a child is excluded from one school he or she has to go to another. PRUs and schools for students with severe behavioural and emotional difficulties are, of necessity, small and have an adult to child ratio of about 1:5.

Schools don't generally have 'security' staff. Members of senior management are usually on call to remove severely disruptive students but they can't do this with many students or for long for obvious reasons. Some schools do have 'special rooms' but this is obviously not ideal either.

Schools are pressured to get great GCSE results with kids who for various reasons are either not up to it or not up for it. This is one reason for the softer subject GCSEs.

Schools are forced to play the league table game and forced to maintain a good reputation otherwise they sink and sink.

'How they are doing in 10 years time'?

I suspect the most successful will be those who attended Oxbridge, (hopefully regardless of the schools they attended but I wouldn't hold my breath there.....).

Getting clever state school pupils to apply to Oxbridge/RG universities in the first place should be the priority, in order to have some proper competition.

Those who apply from my DCs' grammar school are pretty successful (more pupils into Oxford than any other university, and all get into Russell Group universities.... ).

You can't just ignore the difficult kids. Schools have a duty to educate and care for them too and to get them through exams too.

And actually I do think behaviour is more of a problem for a lot of kids. I mean not severe enough for exclusion or even sending a kid out but low level disruption.

I've met a hell of a lot of parents who can't control their own kids and are in constant conflict with them but defend them to the hilt from criticism from teachers.

A parent recently who said she admired her son for going out all night. Kids from families who haven't had a job in 3 generations.

There'll be some really difficult kids in most non-selective schools but then there'll be lots more who are have no work ethic/no aspirations/no boundaries/cause low level disruption.

And I just don't know what Burbulsingh expects. She complains for example that you can't discipline black kids for fear of being labelled racist but there is plenty of evidence that black kids are in fact unfairly picked on.

But also schools and teachers can't afford to offend their parents. They need parents' support. And they can't afford to lose a good reputations. And they can't provoke abusive or violent or even afford the time to deal with endless angry parents.

You would really, really be amazed by how many parents automatically take the side of their kids over even the most minor criticisms.

In my first years of teaching a kid stole my special calligraphy ink pen. I had a farcicial meeting with the kids' parents and his head of year in which neither the parents nor the kid would acknowledge responsibility. What can you do?

'Is this because of

1. personal statements
2. "people like us" amongst admissions tutors
3. schools attended (repeat of above but worth repeating)

Very largely it's because some state schools simply don't push their pupils in the direction of Oxbridge, as many others in this thread have said.

fivecandles, it sounds so tough for schools & teachers dealing with kids & families like that

Actually I wouldn't be at all surprised how many parents automatically take their kids' side - I've come across exactly that in much less critical situations in much higher performing schools

No idea what the solution is. If there is one.

There is definitely a lot of truth in what fivecandles says.

Many parents just aren't interested. At the primary where I volunteer most of the parents don't appear to give a shit about their children's education.

They don't read with them. Don't ensure they've done their spellings. Most don't turn up to parents evening. Hell, I've ended up volunteering there despite having no DC attending because none of the parents would do it!!!!

The children's behaviour is poor. Mostly just low level disruption (with the occasional flourish of trully appalling stuff) but it is constant.

It's unsuprising given the amount of crap these kids eat, the amount of telly they watch and PS they play, the ridiculous hours they go to bed etc etc

The trouble is the teachers have lost the will to control it and the situation is almost accepted.

God only knows what the answer is.

wordfactory - "It's unsuprising given the amount of crap these kids eat, the amount of telly they watch and PS they play, the ridiculous hours they go to bed etc etc".

I don't dispute the deleterious effects of bad food, bad TV, too many computer games and insufficient sleep on children's behaviour. But I could say, hand on heart, that some children I know very well suffer to some extent from the above but don't behave badly either at home or at school because their parents and caregivers both role-model and insist upon good behaviour. I am quite sure that parental standards of behaviour are the greatest predictors of a child's behaviour.

nottirednow you are projecting your own views onto others lives.

Not everyone in highly paid jobs is bored and miserable.
Nor do many of them even work in an office (I'm here in my cosy study with a cuppa and MN)

I know lots of folk who adore their work and make great money.

Some poeple want to live in London, New York and Beijing.
Some people want to be involved in business, finance, law, the media, politics etc
Some people thrive on it. They don't find it difficult or pressured (indeed having read Xenia's posts for years I'd say she's one of the most chilled on here ).

And who are you or any of us to tell our DC that they shouldn't want any of those things?

When I was growing up on an estate up North it was full of people trying to quash my dreams.

'ooh you don't want to do that.'
'Who would want to live in London?'
'Why would do you want to apply to Oxbridge? All that bloody stress?'

Boy am I glad I didn't listen.

Bonsoir you are right of course.

The parents are a pretty rum lot.
They show no interest in their children's education so why the hell should the children?

And some of the very difficult behaviour they must see at home.

Pace a seven year old calling a fellow pupil with LDs an 'arsewipe monger.'