Interesting: teachers misconception about state school pupils ending in top Unis

[camaleon]

"Fewer than half of teachers at state schools would advise pupils to apply to top universities, a new study shows - but many do not realise that a majority of Oxbridge students come from state schools"

Article here

hmm.. but most pupils won't make it into the best universities.

those oxbridge students from state schools... well i'll bet they mostly come from high-performing ones in the main.

If the title were "Fewer teachers point TOP students to top universities" then the article might have a point.

But Oxbridge/Russell Group are top because, well, they have top students. I thought it was frankly ludicrous when Michelle Obama was telling a random bunch of girls that they could aspire to go to Oxford. Maybe some or perhaps one might, but for the vast majority of students the dream isn't realistic.

Telling kids they can achieve anything is setting them up for disappointment; telling them to achieve the best they absolutely can should be mandatory.

The Sutton Trust does a great deal of good work in encouraging children from all backgrounds to reach the highest educational levels, and getting more to aim high is one of the ways they do it.

The snag with this survey is that it is all very well to say that 57% come from state schools. But it does not say what proportion within that come from grammars or comprehensives which regularly produce Oxbridge students. Nor does it say how many of the 10% who were on FSM were from grammar schools/Oxbridge familiar comprehensives. They do seem to have found a pool of schools who do not have Oxbridge on their radar when it comes to actual advice given. I can see why this might be frustrating, to Oxbridge admissions tutors (who want the best possible pool of candidates), and to those who are working elsewhere, like the Sutton Trust, to remove perceived obstacles to entry.

I went to Oxford (from top public school). About half my friends had been similarly educated, half were from comps, some very rough.

What everyone had in common was well-educated, motivated parents. That is what makes the different.

I went to a very ordinary Welsh Comp.
It sent students to, the now, Russel group, med schools, Oxford and many other universities. Very many of us got our, aspirational, first choices. Not that we knew anything about words like aspirational. We just knew what we wanted to do.

Yes school was supportive in handing out UCCA handbooks and application forms and nagging about dead lines, but the rest was up to us. We wrote of for information, red prospectus and chattered endlessly to each other.

This was a rural area many of my friends did not have university educated parents. However, school encouraged us to get good grades and we encouraged each other. Most of us had checked our O'level options were suitable and all of us knew what A'levels we needed.

The idea of applying to some where easier, except as fall back, didn't enter our heads. We never felt any less worthy because we were at a comprehensive in the middle of nowhere.

BUT back then the media weren't telling us every 5 minutes that only Private school children and Grammar school pupils stand a chance. We only very dimly knew such places existed

If many of the best students are not going to Oxford and Cambridge because they never apply, then it seems dubious for people to keep on believing that a. Oxbridge graduates are superior and b. that the best intellectual experience is at Oxbridge. If a lot of your most intelligent peers never applied there and went to say, Sheffield instead, then you would be better off at Sheffield too, surely?

My DW was at a state grammar school thet went comprehensive about 35 years ago and even back then she said the change in attitude among teachers was huge. The old grammar teachers retired or went to private schools (a few stayed) but the state school teachers who came in routinely advised pupils to aim low. She firmly believes there was a strong bias against sending pupils to top unis by some state school teachers even back then.

As a result of her experience, my DW has had some involvement with Sutton Trust while she was still at at uni going round state schools talking to pupils encouraging them to apply to top unis and some state schools refused point blank to let her even talk to the pupils.

I think Michelle Obama knows what she is saying far more than most of us. Yes her parents were desperate for their children to get a good education, stay out of trouble and do well. But believe me the Chicago South Side was/is a very very tough environment to break out of, and she did outstandingly well. If she can do it, then those girls she was talking to can aim high, and can get out of the limitations of their background (and have the huge advantage of the NHS to help them).
Some teachers don't approve of Oxbridge, some underestimate their pupils ability and some are bound down by the pressures not to succeed on their pupils.

Michelle Obama didn't tell a 'random bunch of girls' that they could go to Oxford.

Her points were more general. But her main point was pretty much the same as areyoutheregod's observation - that children who are encouraged and loved can achieve. Video

The headline of the article might be misleading: the text makes it clear it's referring to "academically gifted" and identified G+T pupils.

It's interesting that someone thought Michelle Obama was setting children up for failure by telling them to aim high, e.g. Oxbridge.

When I was in China they would have a 'college conversation' with 7-8 year olds in neigbourhood schools. They were shown a clip of the very best colleges in the UK and the US and elsewhere in Asia. They were told - in terms 7-8 year olds would comprehend - about which were best for arts and sciences etc. They were told to aim high and the students were passionate, gripped and interested. Makes you think, I can't believe we'd ever do this in the UK in your average primary.

The article is not about how every child can go to Oxbridge universities, but (as I read it) about how teachers believe that state school children, albeit very able, cannot make it to those Universities because they are not in the 'right' school.

Very interesting comment Seahouse

I thought it was frankly ludicrous when Michelle Obama was telling a random bunch of girls that they could aspire to go to Oxford. Maybe some or perhaps one might, but for the vast majority of students the dream isn't realistic.

See, this is the killer attitude for state school pupils, every child going to Westminster/Eton are lead to believe it's an option, ok, not all will manage it, but they start off with the believe it's an option, teaching DCs that unless they are unusually exceptional, it's not something they should aspire to is stopping state pupils having a level playing field- all of those girls might be able to go. If you aim low, you'll probably hit your target, but it'll be a low target, if you aim high you might miss but you might hit a high target. The attitude that "doing ok" is better than "possibly doing amazingly, possibly failing" stops bright DCs from pushing themselves. Fear of failure is a crap lesson to teach a child.

My DC's ordinary comp encourages those who they feel have the ability to go to Oxbridge/Russell Group. It starts from year 9 when they are chosing their gcses.

"but (as I read it) about how teachers believe that state school children, albeit very able, cannot make it to those Universities because they are not in the 'right' school"

We were told at ds's 6th form open evening that actually the fact that dcs school is considered a "good" that gets the odd child into Oxbridge actually is in DS's favour.

Interesting article, I guess it's another example of the culture of low expectations that seems to prevail in some parts of the state sector.

Of course not everyone can go to 'Oxbridge' (there wouldn't be enough room for one thing :)) so it's important not to get too hung up on that being the be all and end all - there are other good universities, both in the UK and internationally, and in fact it may be that some students would be happier and better suited elsewhere.

But there's no reason why a gifted, hardworking pupil from a state school shouldn't aspire to go there - no they might not succeed, but is that a reason not to even try? There's no shame at all in not getting into Oxford, the competition is so intense (from international applicants as well), that many very bright applicants miss out, though most I'm sure go on to be very successful elsewhere. You'll never know if you don't apply though!

It has to be about teacher attitude because I frankly do not believe that there are NO kids in Kirklees state schools bright enough to go to Russell Group unis
but I do believe there are lots of teachers who create low aspirations

EVERY comp should be made to publicise how many of their kids got into an RG Uni (broadening the base such that every school can genuinely reach the target)
and if it is less than half of their percentage of the number of students going to RG unis, ask why (again factoring for selective schools but not too much)

and the corollary is that every selective school should be forced to publicise how many of their students were not entered for exams (as with the Queen Ethelburga's threads)

I think the points about aspirations and expectations from an early age. But DH and I went to Cambridge. Both of us have a parent who studied there, which is consistent with areyoutheregod's observation.

We also both had teachers at our state primary schools who sought out our parents when we were around 9 or 10, to alert them to the possibility that we might be "Oxbridge material".

DD1 is now nearly 10 and has the kind of academic spark that I think might lead her to consider Oxbridge or another top flight university when she's older. But I don't get any impression that anyone at her primary school is think in those sorts of terms ... or indeed, thinking beyond her SATs results in one year's time.

And I'm depressed to hear that secondary schools are waiting to Year 9 to bring the subject up.

Not sure why you think yr 9 is too late. Its when dc are choosing their options and helping think about where they will take them. My dd wants to be a SN teacher and toyed with the idea of doing childcare, but was clearly told she was RG material and she was capable of a much more academic route.
DS yr 11, we were just told one parents evening they thought he had the right type of mind for Cambridge. At the moment he actually wants to go to Southampton to do engineering.
At the 6th form opening they had a list up of where last years yr 13 ended up and seem to offer lots of help to get students where they want to go.

Bit unfair to assume that state primary teachers ought to be pushing kids toards Oxbridge - a lot can happen in the next 8 years that they will have no control over.

Agree that lots of peopkle who go to Oxbridge have family members - if not parents - who went there as that plants the idea in the child's mind that it is both a realistic and achievable goal. Actually, not sure having Oxbridge-educated parents is any guarantee of success - my best friend whose parents had both been to Cambridge failed to get in there - mainly because I think she saw it as almost her 'right' to go so didn't really work very hard, despite going to a top school where lots of people did go on to Oxbridge. In fact, of those of us who got in to Oxbridge, none had an Oxbridge-educated parent, in fact I'm not sure any of us even had a university educated parent.

But we were at an excellent school and we did all have intellectually interested - if not educated - parents.

bruffin
year 9 is NOT too late if the school has created an ethos of
every child being able to do anything of which they are capable
BUT
if the ethos of the school is that their kids don't go to posh places, year 9 is MUCH too late to start overriding that
year 4 is probably too late
in fact round here we get parents writing their kids off the achievement ladder before school !!!

PS Engineering at Southampton is FAB - not that I'm biased mind :-) Which type of engineering ?

He wants to take Acoustical Engineering. He is yr11 just taking his gcses, so things may change once he gets into 6th form.

I don't know how long this 'debate' has been going on, but it was certainly going on when DS was born and he is only a few years off applying to university now.

And state schools students and their teachers seem remarkably resistant to the idea that the cleverest students should go to Oxbridge, despite constant press and various outreach programmes. There are also marked regional discrepancies about who applies where, which doesn't correlate with academic achievement by region.

So maybe people should try a new approach? Maybe they should accept that a group of state school students, who are supposedly the cleverest young people in the country have the brains to look at Oxbridge and come to the quite rational decision that they do not want to go. And no matter how many Oxbridge graduates go on about how Oxbridge is the most wonderful experience ever, a lot of intelligent sixth formers don't agree with you. And for a long, long time now a significant proportion of the cleverest and most high achieving people have wanted to go somewhere else and so have done.

And telling those students over and over again that they are wrong is not going to make a whole load of people from, for example, the North East agree with you. They've gone elsewhere. Accept that Oxbridge isn't getting the most capable students and hasn't done for a very long time now, because they have chosen to go elsewhere. And the fact that Oxbridge is still seen as the best even though the best students are often elsewhere demonstrates what a lot of snobbery is bound up in our perceptions of those institutions.

I think oxbridhe here is just a shorthand for 'the top unis' wherever they are.

Agree that sts from the south more likely to consider Oxbridge specifically because they're nearer. With high fees, i think that trend will increase - more sts living at home etc.

bruffin
Ah the joys of the ISVR - right bunch of maniacs but academically excellent and HUGE amounts of cutting edge research and commercial spinoffs going on. Well done him.

bread
that's why I'd rather the RG shorthand (like Ivy League) as then it covers a large enough number of universities to be a reasonable aspiration.
seahouses
and as there are RG unis all over the country, that gets round the north south split pretty effectively