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.

Well, like it or lump it, money is important.

Sure, I don't think anyone needs millions, however, given the current economic cilmate and this governments approach to state support, I would say it is hugely important that we impress upon our DC the need to ensure they can live independently.

Further education will leave them with tens of thousands of debt.
House prices are still absurdly high.
Rental homes are absurdly expensive.
Tax credits, child benefits etc are all being eroded.
State pension is being eroded.
Would any of us be really surprised if we ended up with no state pension and us having to provide for ourselves?
And healthcare? Will we all end up paying for that too?

It's fine to be holier than thoug and give the old catbum face, but do you want your DC to be stuck in a low wage job in a world with no TC?

And part from money, there is the issue of power.
Who runs our country.
Who applies justice.
Who runs our media.
Who runs our businesses.
Who runs our economy.

I don't know about you but I for one would like to see a more reflective group of people in that crowd. So, yeah, I do want to see more bankers from working class backgrounds An yes, I do want to see more women in the judiciary. And you bet I want to see more ethnic minorities in politics.

This can only happen if DC aim high.

Otherwise it's the same old same old.

It's realistic not parochial and old fashioned. People with children the age of mine who are going for jobs know what employers want (in many jobs). The employer might be very wrong to prefer to Russell Group 2/1 over the 3rd from an ex poly but children need to know about employer preferences so they have information knowledge and power and options and choices. They might well choose to become contemplative nuns and I genuinely have no problems with any career my children choose but I would like them not to have closed off early particular careers through bad choice of GCSE, A levels and university.

Middle class hand winging over job satisfaction etc is a luxury.

The vast majority of people just do what they have to do, to put a roof over theor heads and food in their kids bellies.

I listened to a great radio prog yesterday about a research project in the dirt poor bible belt of the US. The terminally ill were interviewed to talk about leaving a moral legacy since they had no worldly goods.

It was very moving.

But what was very clear was that personal happiness, fullfillment, job satisfaction etc were very low on the list of priorities in these folks' lives.

As the auhtor of the research said, such things are the preserve of the rich. They are a luxury.

Wordfactory - good post.

I admit, have that 'liberal middle-class thing' going on myself. Despite a modest start and poor schools - I've done well financially. But I made practical career choices - basically I didn't enjoy being poor! dh was the same.

But now our dc's do have the luxury of a good education, and we have encouraged them to think about job satisfaction and doing what makes them happy.

But I was was pulled short by my ds recently. He told about his friend and his 'fathers plan for his life'. It involved going to a top selective school and included Harvard.

I smugly told ds - how lucky he was that his parents haven't mapped out his life.

His reply - 'But mum it sounds like a great life - who wouldn't want that?'

My children's school is the highest up in the list of schools that are commutable for my area.

However in the next county there is a state comprehensive that is one of the highest in the list for state comps. it is seen locally as an excellent school.

I would not send my children there in a million years becasue the way they get their results is to push the children into academic oblivion. Lots of them give up all hobbies and extra curricular activities becasue of the "pressure of schoolwork".

The homework that Year 7's receive leaves little time for anything elst.

not what I want for my children.

jackstarb - I think there is a very fine line between comfortably-off middle class liberalism and complacency, when imagining our DCs' future.

Bonsoir - certainly no complacency here.

A good education and a good academic work ethic (as described in 5Candles post earlier) open up opportunities which were not easily available to dh or me.

And I'm keen for my dc's to take advantage of this.

jack that made me laugh.

Whenever I tell my children how better something will feel if they buy it themselves they just laugh at me ...to be honest, I'm not sure I buy it myself.

Having had to scrabble up the greasy pole for pretty much nothing I would have loved it if my parents could have bought me a car, or my first flat.
Bloody loved it I tell ye....

And yes, I am entirely inconsistent about handwringing liberalism versus practicality.

On the one hand, having been very poor and hated it, I think earning well is extremely important.

Then I can come over all wooly and start burbling about job satisfaction, quality of life etc.

I hope my DC can have both. I do and it is very nice.

However, for me, being financially indedpendent, having enough to do all the other things in life I want to do besdies work, having the feeling of sheer comfort that money brings...will always win out.

I blame the miners strike

'I listened to a great radio prog yesterday about a research project in the dirt poor bible belt of the US. The terminally ill were interviewed to talk about leaving a moral legacy since they had no worldly goods.

It was very moving.
'

I heard this too. It was very thought-provoking.

Word .

I do wonder if any of those who espouse the virtues of "modern subjects" have ever had to work alongside people who have been in receipt of such an education. A not insignificant proportion can barely string two coherent sentences together let alone write a worthwhile report. That's why these soft subjects get such a bashing. And I don't believe it's because these school leavers/graduates are unintelligent or incapable. It's simply that instead of being taught basic building block skills they've been wasting their time on airy-fairy bollocks. There are precious few half-decent jobs in the modern world that don't require a good grasp of literacy and numeracy.

And no, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with these "modern" subjects. It's simply that they should be left until a later stage of the education process. You can't run until you can walk.

There's also nothing modern or forward thinking in assuming that for the majority work should be a means to an end with no job satisfaction involved.

MrsMipp - I fully agree. You should join me on the Primary School threads I've been on.

I have argued with teachers until I'm blue in the face that establishing the building blocks in Primary school with traditional teaching is essential with times tables, plenty of reading, copying out sentences, learning to do joined up writing, Friday spelling tests and lots and lots and lots of practice at doing your sums in columns.

Apparently that is all wrong because children need to express themselves and learn through exploration and develop strategies to do maths, etc. Yes they do but they still need the basics.

This numb headed thinking goes on now right through secondary school. In contrast, private schools and grammar schools tend to use more traditional methods in the classroom to prioritise getting the basics cemented in place and then move on to more expressive and free thinking styles of learning as well as extra curricular activity (eg drama, sport, Duke of Edinburgh) to explore the other aspects of life.

It's impossible to do advanced university work without a thorough grounding in the basics in core traditional subjects. Modern subjects are just a sop to poor educatational standards.

These league tables suggest I am right.

All those things you describe have been going on in our local state primary school for at least the last ten years, BeenBeta. And in most of them in this area.

They clearly don't - look at the results.

They dont do what I learned at Primary school and Media Studies wasn't even a gleam in an educationalists eye when I got to secondary school either.

Traditional approaches worked and we need to get back there. The league tables reflect the schools that use solid traditional educational values.

'There's also nothing modern or forward thinking in assuming that for the majority work should be a means to an end with no job satisfaction involved.
'

Work will be or should be?

Will be- a reality; should be- why on earth?

Beenbeta just becuase it's not the way in many, does not mean it's not in any: our local primary operates very much in the same way as the privates. Indeed, many parents there could afford private and would have if they had not gained a place here. I'm not entirely convinced myself; I'd like to see both routes as IME the school is excellent IF you are academically gifted and I think a state primary should be more universally inclusive. Academic children should not be forced to work to lwoer standards but equally the less academic children should have a system they can achieve in as well (I have children who fall under both headings and know their careers will be very difference but do not understand why one should be labelled a failure by nine just because his strengths are in the less trad areas).

Erm, they clearly do, Beenbeta. Both my children had weekly spelling tests, times tables tests, lots of reading. I still volunteer in the same school and all the same things continue to happen. My husband is a governor at the same school.

Both are doing very well in their selective, top 50 FT schools.

elphabadefiesgravity's post reveals another reason for there being some value in league tables. Not the FT one so much as the GCSE/EBacc tables.

League tables are useful as a starting point for asking questions about the schools available to you and their suitability for your kids.

If you see what should be an average-intake comp with anomalously high results, it should give pause for thought as to exactly how these are being achieved. If it is by fabulous inspirational teaching, wonderful - but if its by pushing kids into an academic mould which is unlikely to fit your child, and/or squeezing out extra-curricular activities, then they may be better served elsewhere.

Hopefully in schools where everyone is pretty bright there is lots of time for music and sport and other hobbies. I certainly felt my children had loads of time for hobbies. Universities and employers like rounded people. I've been very surprised by the silly little factors which seem to have meant children age to of mine have got a job - all the applicants will have had a 2/1 from a good RG university and all or mostly As at A levels so it willb e some soft other factor that clinched things. Having a wide variety of hobbies is very helpful and it tends to keep teenagers happier too.

Better not mention DH got his first job because he played fives and the senior partner who interviewed him did,that should get the class warriors going..

There should be time for music, sport, hobbies in every school whether the intake is all bright or not - provided they are being taught appropriately to their needs not squashed into the wrong mould.

Yes, teenagers need to work hard but also have a range of hobbies too.

As for what causes people to be hired it's a fascinating issue but finding common ground between you and your interviewer whatever that may be can help. So for that people need the ability to think on their feet and find connections with others quickly. That of course could be that you both came from the same workingclass community as that you hunt together or whatever. The difficult for HR people tyring to break moulds and ensure recruitment is broad to get the best people (if indeed it is true that you get the best from the biggest pool) is to make people hire people whether that be first jobs or on to a leading board of directors who are not at all ike themselves, who may be don't drink, are female, don't socialise, hate sport, are black or have a very common accent.

Yes, it is parochial, Xenia, if you you even try to compare prejudice towards people who hate sport with prejudice towards people because they are black.

Parochial, narrow-minded and stupid to be more precise.

Bonsoir Thu 03-Mar-11 09:50:07
jackstarb - I think there is a very fine line between comfortably-off middle class liberalism and complacency, when imagining our DCs' future.

This was soooo true with my parents! 2 of the 4 of us are "very" bright, only one of us has a high flying carer. I ended up with no "career" because "It'll all turn out alright in the end" A bit of pushing guidance would have been nice. As it was I was left with poor A'levels and no one telling me what to do or where to turn next. Funnily enough, I applied for some nanny jobs, and the fact that I'd been to a private school meant mums were quite keen for me to look after their children, and I was able to get a well paid jobs without any formal childcare qualifications.

I have argued with teachers until I'm blue in the face that establishing the building blocks in Primary school with traditional teaching is essential with times tables, plenty of reading, copying out sentences, learning to do joined up writing, Friday spelling tests and lots and lots and lots of practice at doing your sums in columns.

Apparently that is all wrong because children need to express themselves and learn through exploration and develop strategies to do maths, etc. Yes they do but they still need the basics.

I agree with the above 100%.