"the more middle class the school, the better it does"

[puddle]

A study, reported in the Guardian today has found that regardless of background, children do better the more "middle-class" the school they attend. 50% of a school's performance is accounted for by the social make-up of its pupils.

Here's a quote from the article:

"In affluent areas, such as Dukes Avenue, Muswell Hill, in north London, and Lammas Park Road, Ealing, west London, the study would expect 67% of 11-year-olds to achieve level 5 in the national English tests and 94% of 15-yearolds to get five or more passes at GCSE at grade C and above.

Meanwhile, of the children growing up in more deprived areas, such as Hillside Road, Dudley, or Laurel Road, Tipton (both in the West Midlands), just 13% are likely to get the top level 5 in the national English tests for 11-year-olds, while only 24% of 15-year-olds will be reckoned to achieve the benchmark five-plus GCSEs at grade C and above.

Put simply, the more middle-class the pupils, the better they do. The more middle-class children there are at the school, the better it does. It is proof that class still rules the classroom."

This seems to me to be proof that middle class parents damage all children by taking their kids out of state education and into private schools and gives credence to the arguement that middle class parents should stick with the state sector to improve education for everyone.

Views? I know it's a total parp subject for many.....

mb - i agree with the 'it's not about class' thing. The crisis in many inner-city London schools is certainly nothing to do with class, where working class parents are just as active, concerned and particpatory in their children's education as mc parents. BUT there is a high ratio of dysfuntional families or families in crisis, with far greater social problems, and in 2ndry schools evolves into issues with crime, drugs, violence etc - and this is of worry (gpoing on full-scale panic) to all the other parents.

absolutely mb, but if the parents DON'T care, then what?
those children need our support I think
my parents cared not a carrot for education, in fact they were deeply mistrustful of it. I was heavily discouraged from staying on at school any longer than necessary. If I tried to do my homework at home, I was hustled outside to "play" or to help with housework or whatever.
I am deeply, eternally grateful to a handful of wonderful teachers who encouraged and guided me. I owe them, if not everything, well then a bloody lot.
these children need adult support. they need decent schools where the expectation is of SUCCESS.
[rant continues off stage]

"He {Webber]insists the government's attempts to introduce a market in education are also economically flawed: "The beneficial peer group effects caused by the children of highly educated parents means a market will not operate in the usual way. The best educational achievement for the largest number of pupils will be achieved by having a broad social mix of pupils in as many schools as possible. Some schools that currently draw their pupils from privileged social strata would lose out, but education standards would increase overall."

I live within sight of Dukes Avenue Muswell Hill and the local primary school was oversubscribed 3:1 last year for reception (although this is a problem generally with the local area).

Alot of the children who attend Muswell Hill Primary are effectively privately educated through the attendance at afterschool clubs (sport, social and academic) and, later when secondary schools become an issue, tutoring to try to get into private or grammar schools.

Everyone has an element of choice. Some people make a great fuss of choosing to live in the local area and send their children to the local schools but this is driving house prices through the roof (you can't get a house in the catchment area for less than £1m), some choose to send their children privately and some (unfortunately) don't have the choice.

We have decided to send our children privately (as we were not offered a local school) and we see this as an investment in our children's future - we don't buy new cars every few years, we don't have a big house or lots of holidays abroad - its a lifestyle choice we have made.

What really gets my goat are church schools - now they are creaming off the local children !

I teach in a large primary school with a hugely diverse pupil intake although the majority are from a very "socially disadvantaged" housing estate. We have recently been recognised as an "outstanding" school by OFSTED and really do achieve amazing results in all sorts of areas - not just academically. We will be moving our 2 dds from their current very middle-class school to mine because we know that they'll receive a far more stimulating and challenging curriculum at my school. Their current school seems to coast along, producing OK results when they should be attaining excellence. I know this is a very personal account but please don't write-off schoole in "rough" areas because many of them really do excel, offering ALL pupils a chance to shine.:)

Everybody knows and always has done that schools with the most middle-class students usually get the best results for lots of reasons: parental academic and other background (a huge indicator in a child's performance at school), income and support, aspirations, attitude towards education and literacy etc etc. This is not to say that these things don't exist amongst working class parents or that working class parents don't care about their kids. Of course they do. Just that there are going to be more of these things (money, aspirations etc) among middle class parents by definition.

It makes sense that a high percentage of middle class students will pull up the results of working class kids too because it means there will be more of the factors above to positively influence the learning conditions in the classroom. But I don't really see where the argument against private schools comes into this.

In middle-class areas with good state schools the middle-class parents are already sending their kids to these schools hence the reason why they're middle class! It's in deprived areas with bad schools that middle-class parents face the choice of moving to the catchment of a more middle-class state school or private school. In this situation it's unlikely the middle-class student would go to the bad school anyway and even if s/he did s/he would be in the minority and have very little impact in the school as a whole (except perhaps as an easy bullying target for an anti-boff culture).

I also wonder where this idea of a private school 'exodus' has come from. Is it 12% of children who go to private school. This is nothing compared to the 20% of kids who are 'selected' for state faith schools which, as I've said in other threads, make up a disproprortionately high number of the schools at the top of the league table and accept a disproprortionately low number of kids with special needs and free school meals and I don't know how many kids who are selected by state grammar schools.

So, as I've said before, huge inequalities and selection and discrimination exist and are encouraged by the state system regardless of the existence of private schools. Selection can be overt (grammar schools) or covert (faith schools) and then there's the house price issue.

As long as these inequalities exist and parents are allowed and encouraged to choose their schools middle-class schools will attract middle-class students and become more and more successful whereas the reverse will be true of schools in deprived areas. I'm sure there are exceptions to this but this is likely to be the case generally just as you are likely to be attracted to friends who have similar backgrounds, aspirations, income as yourself.

I read the article to mean that the middle classes bring the results of the working classes up. Not that the middle classes make the school perform better because they get good results and the the working class children don't. In fact if anything the middle class get worse grades than if they went to an all middle class school.

Our DS1 has just started reception at a very good junior school. One that I went to 18 years ago, a small minority disapeared off to private schools - we all went through the state system. However, parents of other children are already starting to question what private school they are going to go to. Some are going to leave at 7 when the kids go to the primary school and some at 12. This is exactly the area that I grew up in, an affluent area of Guildford - nothing has changed. The two local comps are fine as far as I am aware. But the middle classes are deserting.

Why? Snobbery has a part to play. The local private schools are almost entire education complexes in their own right - art annexes, swimming pool, fencing lessons etc... What reasonably affluent parent could not be bowled over by what is on offer, much more i think than when I was going through the education system.

But also I think parents are now more paranoid about the state of the education system and all the opportunities you have to fail - 7,11,16,18... and we believe that if our precious children fail at one of these hurdles they will be written off for life. The middle classes are deserting the system because they are petrified of this incredibly tough world that we inhabit.

I also think some of you have made a really important point about 'rough' schools which seem to be 'bad' in the sense that they are low down in the league tables but are actually often brilliantly managed, with dedicated and imaginative teachers (they have to be). My partner works in a school for kids with emotional and behavioural problems. The school doesn't even appear in the league tables because most of the kids don't sit exams though many are quite able. So is it a 'bad' school? Well, probably not actually. The staff do a brilliant job with the students they work with. Would I want my children to go there? Over my dead body.

lucy01, my children go to the local church school in N10. I don't see how they are "creaming off" the local children.

We decided that we wanted our children to go there because of our faith. The school's admission policy takes children from the families that go to church. Some play the game and go to church for 2 years to get the place, but in most cases the ones that go there have active faiths and are fully committed to the church.

Muswell Hill has several very good schools, it's not just the church ones.

Marsonlife I'm afraid Lucy01 is right. As I've just said, faith schools make up most of the top schools in the league tables. They take in a disproportionately low number of children with learning difficulties and often don't even reflect their catchment areas (Canon Slade in Bolton accepted just 3 children from its 2 closet primary schools last year). Nobody knows exactly why this happens. Probably lots of factors e.g. the middle class families who 'play the game' as you suggest (and in some cases pretent to have a faith when they don't at all), some of these schools interview parents which allows or covert selection etc etc. It's not that faith schools intend to select on grounds of ability (which they're not allowed to do) but nevertheless this is what's happening.

When did private school become so common in this country or when did people loose faith in state schooling?

I live in a fairly typical area of London( deprived and wealthy people living close together) and DS's primary school has twice been in Ofsted's top 300 schools in the country. It has a large proportion of children who speak English as a second language, quite a high number of refugees, very few MC parents and very few white parents (I covered this on a different thread). It's results are pretty good and DS is certainly being stretched.

I am no expert but I think the head makes a big difference. He was sent to another school for about a year to turn it around and our results took a dive. Coincidence?

He is back with us now and is a real presence. I had to pick DS up early one day and walked through the playground to find him there playing with the younger kids. I am on the PTA and have had some dealings with him and find him very good and seems really committed to the school. Apparently the LTA rate him very highly and seek his advise on difficult issues/cases.

Can a head make such a difference?

I think so, dros, definitely. Our school sounds similar to yours and the head is amazing.

Whatever happened to the Superhead idea?

Can a head make a difference, abosolulty. It isn't just thier simple presence, if you like, but the ethos that they can create. A good head can gather and train a good senior management team (talking here about a compregensive organisation). With a good SMT you can gave a firm, fair and consistant behaviour policy. Once that is in place, and the teacher feel supported in their role, behaviour becomes less of an issue, staff are happier, kids are happier, attaimanet rises, behaviour improves etc etc and you are on an upward spiral.

Bad head, with bad smt, they blame the staff for all the ills of the school. Staff pissed off and unsuported, kids unsupported , behavour gets worse if things are not fair, firm and consistant, attainment falls etc etc you get into a downwards spiral.

But key to it all is haveing parents who give a shit anout their kids and their education. With parents on board and a good head, and then you can have a school worth having, and the kids get the education that they deserve

spring.. our school doesn't interview. Also, pretty much every class in our school has at least 1 child with special needs. Each of my children have had 2 sn children in their classes. We also have a range of children who have free dinners. I don't know the exact numbers anymore as I am no longer a governor there.

We do have a high number of siblings. There are quite a few families with 3 or more children who attend the school.

However, this is just me defending my children's school which I think is a fabulous school. Personally I think it could do with a more ethnic mix, but as Lucy01 says, the house go for close to 1m (though of course there are different housing estates nearby which have children who are spread between the local schools).

Also, the closest CofE senior schools were both failing schools. One was closed and the other has become a City Academy

Drosophila I don't think private schools have become any more common. Certainly on the one's in this area have been here for many, many years. No news one's in last 20years that I am aware of.

I think all that is happening is that people are more socially mobile than they used to be, and there is more mixing of classes (for want of a better description). Things like websites (MN) facilitate this.

You have a window into people's lives that you might never see in RL so you are more aware of people choosing to use private education that might have been the case in the past!

Although to contradict my own post I do recall reading that the percentage of children being privately educated is rising - however this might be due to falling numbers of children overall, rather than increasing absolute numbers in private education.

I've never been one for the common good at the direct expense of my loved ones. I'll do what's best for my children and hang the consequences (in response to the moral argument that middle classes are doing something heinous by removing their children from the state sector into private schooling). I'm an unreconstructed tory by the sound of it

Would however happily pay more tax to see a bigger investment in state education

What if you're motivated to use the private sector not through desperation but just because there are things you value that either the state system cannot resource or that other parents in the state system don't value enough to demand?

Ds is currently in Year 1 at the local state primary school and if all I wanted for him was good academic performance and a happy environment, then this school would score 100% It's fantastic, and I bless the cotton socks of his teachers so far and it's great. However, I am reluctantly coming to the decision that (on my teacher's salary) I will need to fund private education for him within the next few years. Why? Because the school 'choir' is a bunch of kids in sloppy Tshirts singing happy little pop songs to a karaoke backing tape. Because the band only ever does arrangements of pop songs. Because there is no sense of formality at the school - EVER - to the point that they scream and cheer and do high fives even on the prize presentation night. Because the music 'program' consists of the ordinary classroom teachers who have no real training in music leading them in recorder for one term a year. The art 'program' is done with virtually zero facilities and untrained teachers. They offer no foreign languages. The PE program is very limited...

At the private school where I work the year 5/6 choir has the boys singing complex classical music in four-parts, a cappella, in French. They offer two modern languages. They have a proper music programme and a junior orchestra that does music of complexity and depth. It's a happy little place that still manages to have an assembly twice a week where they are expected to sit still and be quiet and because on prize night and other big occasions they actually have to do this for over an hour without any calling out, yelling, cheering etc...

I just want ds exposed to these things - to be challenged by things that may not initially seem achievable or attractive and perhaps to find that he really enjoys them. There is no way that my local state school can resource some of these things (and I don't know of any country that has a government system that can). And even if they could, some of the things I value (eg the occasional sense of formality, or modern languages) are not even particularly valued many of the teachers and parents at my local school. I don't blame them - they don't have to value the same things as me. But I DO value them, and I DO think they're important and I want my son to have them.

So what do you want me to do?

Following on from Mars's post, my children are in a faith school (RC) and my dd1's Y6 class has 11 children on the SN register, 3 of whom have full statements. Several of the kids are on the 'at risk' register, two of whom have intermittently been in care. Not much evidence of selection there, I think.

Bloss -- the issues you mention do vary across state schools, though. My kids' school is pretty tough on formality, calling adults 'sir' and 'miss' throughout etc. The music has been impressively sophisticated (four-part harmonies to accompany school masses, that kind of thing), but all these extras are frighteningly dependent on the dedication and vision of individuals, and tend to go to pot if the teacher in question moves on. I suspect a private school would be more rigorous and systematic in providing these things, because they know that's what the punters are paying for.

bloss can't he do those things OUT of school?

I mean its important to me that dd1 does a lot of sport as she is very keen and motivated in that area. So I take her to lots of things out of school - she gets first class tuition in swimming, riding and ballet that way.

French you can do out of school here, also loads of music programs/lessons

and this is rural dorset so there must be even more provision elsewhere?

I really hate faith schools.

They will only take someone from their own faith (except when there are places left over and even then some have been known to run with vacancies).

They do not serve the whole community yet they take money from all of our taxes.

They do not encourage multiculturalism.

They are indirectly discriminatory.

They encourage parents to lie to their children about their faith (knowing that parents will do anything to get their child into a igh performing school).

They use school results to encourage more people into their palces of worship. The new missionaries!!!

Parents can find themselves in a situation where their all their local schools are faith schools and they have either no faith or a faith different to the schools on offer. This has happened to two people I know.

And don't even get me started on the religious stuff they teach at school. Can you tell I went to a convent can you?

Actually no, Enid. I really don't know of any children's choirs outside of school (certainly none in our local area) that do things at that level. I can find music classes, but not choirs and orchestras locally at a high level for children of that age group.

Also, there is the very real issue of efficiency.

If these things are built into the school program (eg doing first-class musical tuition instead of banging their way through awful recorder groups) then it's much more productive. Then there's the fact that I work, and I'm simply not free to ferry him around 1-2 separate activities every afternoon after school. A few I can manage, but I can't do it every day. Whereas if the French and music and art classes are in the school day, they are not an issue. It is also easy for him to be involved in some groups at lunchtime or after school on campus, rather than requiring me to pick him up at 3pm (before I even finish teaching my own classes!) and drive him to a separate place where we hang around for 15 mins before it starts while I have to amuse his sister...

I firmly believe that one of the great riches of my education at a school similar to the one I now teach at was that it allowed me to fit MUCH much more into the school day without exhausting myself or my parents with ferrying and waiting and parking etc...

Meant to say, I think it's not very hard to find classes/clubs for sport/dance etc. And individual music lessons are easy. But to find art and orchestras and choirs is very hard, I think.