Are the majority of classes in state schools as disruptive as the class on Jamie Oliver's Dream School?

[mummynoo]

After watching Jamie Oliver's dream school, I am wondering if all state school classes are as rude and disruptive as the class featured in this programme. Since my daughter is due to start infants school this September?

Can any teachers who might be reading this give me their opinion. Is it impossible to teach because the pupils are constantly talking over you?

I'd certanily agree that effort is important. Many children who do well in music for example just happen to practise for 4 times as long as those who don't and the harder I've worked at most things the more successful I've been.

Some children will be idle so and sos wherever they are but others as teenagers will do the work that is the norm so if your class at school mostly works very hard and bunking off is not really done by anyone and everyone goes to good univesrities etc and the GCSEs are mostly 8 of them and 90%+ are A and A* then I suspect by simply placing you in that environment your parent is likely to ensure even the lazier ones do reasonably well.

Manic I do agree with your comments and would consider private if one of my DCs was failing in the state system, particular with a learning disability because the top comp near us refuses to have a centre for children with learning disabilities as it would lower their results. 88% of their children get 5 including Maths and English. 100% get 5. I am very against this type of manipulation in the state system. The school my DCs will go has 84% with 5 including Maths and English but does work hard with kids with learning difficulties. I have mild Dyslexia as does my sister but we both did well in the state system. However, the private schools (apart from the selective ones) do work well with these children. Both of mine struggled to read at first but had plenty of extra help and are now doing well. I would not hesitate to send mine private if they had a severe problem. I think these kids even with a high IQ may struggle in many comps.

Cortina - no, the school is not selective, we have the full ability range from scholsrship winners to those with statements of SEN. I can't give you any infor on GCSE results though as it's a prep school and finishes at 13. We focus on getting children to a senior school where they will be able to succeed though - for some that is state grammars, for others top public schools like Radley and Oundle and for others smaller, more nurturing schools that have no academic entrance requirements like Kingham Hill.

Yellowstone - I did not mean at all to say that it was irrelevant for you to mention your children's achievements. I was just trying to balance the adverse reaction to private education that Xenia's extreme views were (understandably) provoking by pointing out a different reason for choosing private.
And no, I would not bust a gut to send a bright or middling ability child private. I was very happy at my state school and had plenty of extra curricular opportunity. I don't think private education is necessary. If I was very rich and the fees were immaterial then I might do. But I would not struggle to do it.

Apologies - a quick check on the NL tells me the A*s were 72%.

Which, is only just below Westminster and the like.

The school seem to have it down pat. Almost every girl there thrives.
And I think that is what is important. That girls with very different levels of intellect, very different dispositions and interests can all do so very well.

I said in my post below that the teachers were not magicians, but actually they are not far off.

Thanks for the article slipshod. Matrix is a leader in offering work experience in chambers to school students who wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to get it. Two of the Sixth Form at our school have been there, both now at or with an offer from Oxford. I've seen examples of their outreach programme mirrored by at least one MC firm; hopefully most do it now. My eldest daughter's college works with an inner city school too, encouraging students to come to Oxford. There are all sorts of things going on. I'm sure those organising these programmes are the least complacent, but it's all good, as are the latest figures from the Director of Undergraduate Admissions at Oxford. I'm not actually particularly naive about merit winning the day, but I was more making the point that there are a lot of people out there trying to seek real talent and not being fooled by the cosmetic effects of a fee-paying education, the point Cherie Blair makes with more eloquence.

DH's firm has, after much foot stamping from himself, now isseued firm wide policy that work experience may only be offered to those that formally apply...and not to somepartner's child, or a mate's child etc.

I think that's a step in the right direction. Not that there's anyhting to stop a partner's child applying, but it's less of a shoe-in. And I'm certain an important client's child would be pushed forward in the queue...but it's still an improvement.

Baby steps and all that.

However, his view is that the biggest factor is lack of applicants from state schools.
Another factor is poor choices made at GCSE, A level and degree stage...which is down to poor advice and so should be easily fixable.

Agree Yellowstone, that there is no merit in being defeatist before one starts about the chances of success for poorer children, but there is merit in being aware of where discrimination might occur and attempting to equip children so that they are not handicapping themselves unnecessarily. I like her comment that her correction of her senior's legal argument was not a gaffe that her husband would have made, and think this is definitely the kind of thing that youngsters are unlikely to realise but can learn.

The man was an idiot. My children would certainly point out the flaw. That's certainly what their current teachers and tutors would tell them to do, so would I, perhaps just to do it politely.

Goodness knows how you go about getting more children from ordinary backgrounds into the bar.

City firms are slightly easier, because the money is so good, even the poorest can see a way to paying off their debts quickly. Plus lot sof large firms pay law school fees.

The bar is different. There is hardly any help with bar school fees (£15,000) and pupils and baby barristers earn fuck all.
How is the average person going to live?
Fine if family can help out and they live near chambers, but what about ordinary folk?

75% of the judiciary are form private school. This isn't set to change. And yet these are the people who apply justice in this country.

wordfactory - I agree with you re: effort and ability, something I've written about on here a great deal. Just looking at the academics, I am fairly average, yet I narrowly missed getting a first.

wordfactory I think there are schemes cropping up in the biggest and best sets too.

I hope so, Yellowstone.

I remember when I made my decision whether to go city or bar, the decision was made for me. I had nowhere to live in LOndon and needed to make enough for rent.
And my MC law firm sponsored me through law school -fees and living expenses.

Things are even worse now with university fees increasing, law school and bar school fees so high. 15k!!!!!
Then there are all the bloody mini pupilages you're supposed to do for free.

You are right. He was an idiot and we shouldn't teach our children too much deference. I remember my husband as a trainee, telling me about suggesting a "change" to a v expensive commercial barrister when they were in a lift. The barrister was very grateful and passed his thanks to the supervising partner, saying he had been saved a lot of money!

A quiet word, politely made, I'm sure would be acceptable.

In front of a client? Hell no.
Made in a bolshy manner? Hell no.
Mentioned to anyone else? Hell no.

And if Cherie Blair was not offered tenancy based on that one mistake...I'll eat my practising certificate.

Sadly though, there is many a twat in any environment who would not thank a junior for telling him or her, they were wrong.

Working out who these people are is one of the most important things you need to do in the world of work.

I think some young people are led to believe that they are terribly important, that their views are terribly important. It all comes as an awful shock when they face the harsh reality.

When I subbed my last book, my usual editor asked if the junior could work with me. I agreed. The crap she came out with was astonishing. And her manner was of someone very used to being listened to. Fortunately for her, my ego is small and my sense of humour large...many other writers would have had her sacked.

But they learn...

wordfactory I think the going rate for top commercial sets is a £60,000 pupillage award of which £20,000 can be drawn down for the BPTC year, also a minimum income guarantee for the first two years. So not all doom and gloom if you're good enough to get in.

Everyone says the same: the key bit is getting the right pupils to the right universities; everything should flow more straightforwardly from there.

well wordfactory then she was an idiot too.

Was she from an indie?

I didn't ask to be honest.

Though publishing is awash with independently educated girls, so probably.
The trouble is you need internships to get in and they're so hard to get wihtout contacts. And of course you need to be able to live somewhere in London on no salary.

Then there's the fact that it's not terribly well paid when you do land a job.
And there's a lot of socialising expected which costs of course.

I could go on and on about access...tis a bugbear of mine.

Sorry, have just seen your post re help wiht bar school - that is very good.

Which sets offer that? And to how many pupils?

yellowstone have been out @ work all day, so didn't see your post earlier, and yes, have mooted the idea about bursaries for the academically challenged. If I ever win the lottery (, gotta buy a ticket first, apparently...) that is exactly what I would do with hard cash. I feel very strongly that schools with amazing league table results could ppen a 'parallel' school, same teachers, and help those who struggle to learn, but want to, to achieve their maximum potential. I don't feel strongly about contributing to bursaties for the whining middle classes - sorry.
(Had this convo with DH last night, as am actively looking for a new career challenge - he thinks I should do something completely off the wall - feel a campaign coming on...)

£60,000 seems pretty standard now for all pupils across top commercial sets. Other sets offer a varying degree of help but I've seen £45,000 for the pupillage year from a mixed set, £22,000 from a criminal set and so on, so without doing a major trawl I think it's fair to say a life at the Bar is now more accessible too.

I've been in all day with a sore-throated off school child, so I've spent far too much time diddling around!

I think your DH is giving good advice.A campaign sounds good. Sometimes they work! What was the response you got? Or were you given the brush off?

(The other children have just all piled in, better go and pretend I'm not slack....).

yellowstone was given the standard silky cat-like smile/fob-off from the HM, but it has got me thinking...

Yes, the profession given is one of the best for the poor, way way way better than say journalism and fashion and places like that where you need to work unpaid and have contacts. However you have to be supergood to get that type of funding.

The comments about some young people thinking they are supergood are true and how do we make sure our children say the right things or learn the rights skills to say the right things. One of my mine has an interview tomorrow and some of what we talked about today in a brief chat was really much more psychology than the subjet itself - who will be there, what are they like, how to adjust what you say to what's said then, what are they looking for

I work in an inner city comprehensive school and yes, some of the students closely resemble those on Jamie's Dream School. However, before making any judgements about the academic ability of these students the reasons why they failed to gain GCSEs should be explored. Off the top of my head I recall from the programme that at least one sixteen year old already lives on his own in a council flat and another lost her father at an early age and her mother was injured in the London bombings. Faced with this type of experience academic success is not a priority for many teenagers. In my school I would guess at lest 20% of the student population have special educational or emotional needs.

It is my guess that with care and attention, the majority of kids in the programme will turn their lives around. If you are shocked by these kids consider yourself lucky. this is reality of life for around 25% of school kids!