"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.....

I'm also wondering how it's ok to send your child to a specialist sports or arts or whatever college in the state system because s/he has a particular enthusiasm or aptitude for this subject but parents who send their kids to a school which specialises in, or offers expert tuition in, language or music etc for the same reason are scorned. My point being, once again, that the state system allows and encourages these kinds of choices anyway regardless of the private system.

That should have said:

but parents who send their kids to a school which specialises in, or offers expert tuition in, language or music etc in the private system for the same reason are scorned.

Interesting how you singled out arts and sports as State school specialisms and music and languages as Private school specialisms

Our local secondary state school has specialist language status. It makes me laugh a little because when I read the last OFSTED report, the number of GCSE passes for languages was very low. Lower than any of the other subjects. Do these specialist schools really aim to attract pupils with those specific talents or do they aim to push this particular specialism upon its current intake? I don't really understand.

Beatie, it could just as easily have been the other way round. As you say, state schools can be specialist language colleges etc too. I was just trying to reflect the fact that Bloss seemed to be being criticised for wanting the expertise and facilities a private school can offer her child in terms of music (I don't think they have state music colleges do they? Does music come under arts?) which I don't think would happen to X mum who chose to send her child to a specialist state college and that doesn't seem fair.

I think with the specialist colleges it all comes down to money. To become a specialist a school needs to raise money (from private sources) which is then matched by govt money. This is then ploughed back into the school and particularly its area of expertise. Specialist sports colleges for example often have brilliant sports centres and become a kind of 'hub' for other schools. I suppose you would expect results to improve in the specialist subject but, as you point out, this may not always be the case. The other issue is that these colleges can then select a percentage of their students by 'aptitude'

Celia2 - In principle I agree that it would be wonderful if all school scould be equal and have just the correct ratio of children from higher and lower socio-economic backgrounds to ensure the maximum amount of children from both backgrounds do well at school. But I can't see how it could be put into practice and do imagine the ridiculous scenario of children having to be bussed in and out of different areas to ensure the right backgrounds are represented at each school.

spring - I can assure you that's not the case. The specialist SEN school has expanded over the years and still has room for growth (which it's doing), building a special SEN building for those that need extra help out of the classroom. The local faith school has absolultey nowhere to expand.

Those parents who do have SEN children at the CoE school include a muslim family who are very happy with the quality of education and support that their child is getting.

As it happens the CoE is an excellent school, being listed in Ofsted's 'top schools' (or whatever it's called) list for the last 2 years. Children come from all over the town to attend it, and evidently (with at least one Muslim family) obviously doesn't discriminate too much.

It'll be interesting (and worrying) to see how the school develops over the next few years. The headmistress of 15yrs is leaving in July - "to pursue other opportunities" (or for those of us in the know to support her DH in his expanding consultancy buisness lol).

sorry drosophila, I keep reading your name as dropshila.... I think I need to wear my glasses.

I'm sad that our school is the exception, but at the same time glad that it is iyswim!

harpsichord: I take your point, but it is important to me that my children are at school where our/their beliefs aren't sidelined. I could of course stretch the point by saying the same of single sex schools, except that I'm quite happy for my children to go to single sex schools as well. Of course (and maybe I'm reaching here) schools are now becoming "specialist" schools - music, sport etc and pupils are encouraged to go to the ones that suit them and/or are selected according to their ability.

I do think though that ultimately it is up to us as parents to guide and support our children through school. I was talking to a friend just this evening about this. He said that he had read a report (but typically couldn't remember where) which said that it didn't matter where a child went to school but what happened at home. A point that someone else made just below (forgive my tired lazy brain for not scrolling down to check who).

springintheair .. sorry can't really think of anything else to add though I have read your posts and will mull over them (whilst still being happy with my choice - not a dig I assure you!).

Just checked the last Ofsted Report and 7% of pupils are SEN - below National Average (but that's from last year so could have changed) so 12.6/180 childre n are SEN

Don't know what the figures were previously - but numbers of pupils at the school has literally doubled in the last 8yrs.

Not read all posts sorry feeling lazy
My (maybe overly simple) opinion: a school's success is down to leadership, expectations of the principal and most importantly expectations of parents.

Some parents couldn't care less how their child does at school, others spend their whole lives worrying about it and place huge emphasis on exam results.
Middle class parents have always absented themselves from "sink" schools by living in catchment areas of "better" performing schools; this is nothing new.
Sorry if I've repeated what everyone else has said!

QofQ in my limited experience , registered SEN rates are not necessarily to be trusted: our (exceedingly middle class and also good for most) school officially ahs no Sn kids, I know for a fact 9being Mum of one) that they have at least 3 AS kids and one ADHD. They just make it very hard to get it acknowledged, for various reasons some exceedingly dubious.

Bloss completely agree with you.

Of course it is possible to do the extras out of school but why on earth would I send my kids to school to waste their day and then drag them round to activities after school which IMO should be a part of the school curriculum. I'd far rather they did the things that I value as part of a rounded education at school so they can chill out and relax out of school hours.

DD's school choir won a cup at the local eisteddfod today, sadly it was only against the boys private school (non of the state primaries entered).

Wow, Enid - you are so harsh!

But I think yours and harpsichord's posts do highlight my point... You both suggest that any reasonable adult can provide adequate art, music, language tuition etc. And I agree that any adult can cobble a class together. But I'm not interested in activities which produce at best total mediocrity. I wouldn't expect my child to enjoy a music class run in such a way. And even if they enjoyed it (which I think would be a miracle) they wouldn't get the things I wanted - the challenge of doing something to a high standard and perhaps achieving something they didn't think they could do.

For instance, I have a music performance degree (in piano) and years and years of choral experience plus did about 6 years of music theory exams. But I wouldn't dream of conducting a children's choir of the kind I have in mind. I simply don't have the skills - in particular no conducting experience. I don't have a music degree and conducting something in 8 parts is incredibly demanding. And my knowledge of music history isn't good enough. I can get a bunch of kids together in T-shirts and teach them a few things in different parts. But I can't do the choir thing properly.

And this was my point before... a lot of the parents at my school are happy (as you seem to be too) with a happy bunch of kids participating in the activities in a mediocre sort of way. If they're happy with it, why on earth would they even consider paying massive fees for their children to gain an experience which they themselves don't particularly value. So I don't blame the school for not providing it, even if they could afford it (which they can't).

But I want it for my ds. It was one of the great enriching experiences of my childhood (and adult life), and I want him to have the chance to discover the joys of it. Maybe he won't like it, and that'll be fine too. But he can at least try it and see what it's like to strive for the highest standards in something - before moving on to find something that does appeal to him.

Enid, you're dismissive of people who want these things because you don't value them. Fine. But it would be nice to acknowledge that some people might value things that you don't, and therefore their motivations are genuine.

And btw, Blu - I NEVER said that working class parents don't want to demand these things. I was talking about the other parents at my local school which is a bastion of the middle-class. I only mentioned the lack of 'demand' because there are some things my school can't provide (eg top quality music) because they can't afford it, and some things they don't provide because they don't want to (eg formality and discipline at assembly).

' For a good, happy, free education for a 6 year old I would overlook the high-fives...' Yes, we're sticking with his school for a few more years. He's too young for the other things to be an issue yet. But by the time he's, say, 8 I think he's old enough to start a proper involvement in some of the things I'm talking about.

no bloss that's not QUITE what I am saying
I don't doubt that you do want the very best possible experience for your child
I am just saying that, in terms of value for money and return on input, if the money and effort expended on a privately educated child in one term was directed towards providing not a perfect but an enjoyable and educational experience for a class of state school pupils, well it would go a very long way.
rather then saying - my child needs the perfect experience, surely better to work on improving school life and educational opportunities for all pupils who want it.

But Harpsi we are already paying for that to happen, through our considerable taxes - DH and I in combination have probably paid for several teachers' salaries this year in taxes

If we choose to spend some more of our money on providing education for our own children, then so what! It is just a choice, no more no less than choosing to buy Jimmy Choos rather than Barrat!

Yes it costs shedloads of money, but there we go, less for the retirement pot, but our choice nevertheless!

Harpsichord - I would fully support tax increases that went to providing public education funding. My conscience is quite clear on that. And if we in fact do send ds private, we will actually SAVE money for the state education system. So my conscience is clear on that - I will be funding another child's education PLUS my own. So I will be contributing money to the state system way above those who simply send their children there.

But it still seems to me that there are some people, such as myself, who want more from the school than others. If we all have to have the same system, then either I have to compromise and sacrifice things that I think are important for an education; or other parents have to cough up to fund things that they themselves don't value. For instance, Enid and yourself seem to have indicated that having a happy school that does pretty well academically is enough. Would you be prepared to pay a lot more in taxes to fund the kind of music program that I would like? (Funding it for all state schools obviously - can't discriminate!) If not, then what happens to excellence in music in schools. Do we just give up on it?

And today there was another incident which confirmed things for me. Ds is in Year 1 and has natural shyness. For years he has found it difficult to greet both adults and children appropriately - he tends to shut down/hide/not look at them. In a small child, with that kind of personality, I think you have to let it go. However, as he gets older I think this definitely needs work. It is just starting to get to the age where it is beginning to look like bad manners (not just 'isn't he a sweet little shy thing') - especially because he also tends to deal with it by simply walking off and ignoring the person.

So I had a chat to his teacher today and asked if there are any situations at school where this can be developed. (Obviously it is hard to practise greeting strangers at home.) I told her how at my primary school we used to shake hands with the teacher on our way out the door and say, 'Good afternoon Mrs X'. I was thinking that something like this would be just the ticket for him.

She told me that she used to do that, but had been told off because it was 'too private school' and wasn't allowed to do it any more.

Which just goes to show that as lovely as this little school is, it doesn't put the same emphasis on manners and formality that I do. And there is a perverse snobbishness about it - as if good manners and discipline are intrinsically snobbish.

I am not criticising anyone for their choice of sending their child to private school. (I have read many eloquent explanations for that decision on this thread and elsewhere)

what I am saying is that, rather than complaining about the standard of the local school forcing you to go private (that is the particular point I was debating) then rather than say "I pay my taxes" or "I would pay more taxes..." then spend some of the time and energy you would otherwise have spent in getting your child into private school in improving the state school. by fundraising, or vounteering, or running activities.

the point of this OP was that the more "middle class" parents leave the state system, then the more schools will suffer.

well "schools" are not some inanimate entity - they contain actual children - real children whose life chances are being affected by the collective life choices of the "middle classes" -individual choices have wider collective consequences is the point of the OP
the state school and its pupils suffer. and then we all suffer because the next generation is under educated and disaffected with all the economic and social consequences that brings.
I think to say "well the school should be better" is a bit of a cop out tbh. that is not much comfort to the children or parents who have no choice. political solutions are slow and ineffective and anyway not what this thread is about.
if the school isn't good enough for your children, then imo it isn't good enough for anyone's children.
ramble ramble

oi!

my art classes are run by people at the top of their field in the area and they are bloody good!

Yes I am happy to settle for 'mediocre' (whatever that means) if it means my children are enjoying what they are doing rather than being pressured and hothoused.

I do value culture for children very highly, which is why I spend my working life promoting it! But I value 'accessible' culture for children who wouldn't normally get a chance to do it more. I see so many children at the local private schools having fantastic access to galleries and trips etc and my role is to try and provide similar things for children from state schools who want a similar level of art education. That isn't mediocre, that's pioneering

I think its a great shame that you have decided you are not highbrow enough to consider setting up a children's choir with your experience, you really have something to offer there

Bloss, I understand your point about wanting your children to experience doing music, art etc. to a high standard - I feel much the same way myself. However, I also consider that there might be something to be said for learning to enjoy doing something to a mediocre standard. We can all derive some pleasure from activities at which we are not naturally talented; going too far in the pursuit of excellence can leave people unnecessarily inhibited about enjoying doing things they're not very good at.

Harpsichordcarrier, ten years ago I'd have agreed with you. But since then I've really tried to go down the constructive route and have just felt used. Like Bloss I feel that other parents' don't share my values, and I can't do an awful lot on my own. But I have high hopes of the incoming Head of my children's school so it's not all doom and gloom.

Enid - you have a point about the bizarre excuses for private education that some people come up with. My favourite is "Did you see that documentary on the telly last night about people living in tower blocks? Those children are so incredibly damaged - isn't it sad? I wouldn't want my daughter to have to go to school with people like that!". My response was to point out the conspicuous lack of tower blocks on the local skyline.

enid/hallgerda yes! absolutely
now I appreciate really high quality art as much as anyone but the participation and accessibility is the thing, for children esp but for adults too.
art/music/sport/learning are all wonderful life enhacing empowering experiences. And it makes me CROSS to think that the attitude should be that only the very very good should participate
sheer bloody elitism
there is a place for the Berlin Philharmonic but there is a place for having a go at the recorder and singing in the choir even when you are not very good at it and that's how you get better or even just enjoy yourself
and actually I ALWAYS produce the very best quality materials and experience that I can. Quality is a state of mind

How many people send their childen to private school for the connections they make and for the development of a nice posh accent.

I know a couple he comes from very WC backgound and she from a less WC background. Their children both go to private school and have much posher accents than their parents. The children already behave like they are embarrassed by their parents.

Bruno is going to Eton 'for the connections'

poor lamb

Boy, you lot are so one-eyed about this!

I don't think you need to put a child into a mediocre music class in order for them to experience the joy of being mediocre at something. My children will certainly achieve mediocrity without any help from me! I, for instance, will always be mediocre - actually way below that! - in visual arts and dance, for instance. I am absolutely talentless. But I nevertheless would benefit from experiencing top quality teaching of it and seeing how top quality dance, for instance, is done.

I don't think I need to put my son into a mediocre situation in order for him to achieve mediocrity - he will find his own unique ways! And I will fully encourage his participation in such activities as long as he enjoys it. However, in those areas where he has talent and the capacity and desire to do more I want that developed. And I also want him gently and happily challenged on the things he's not so good at.

I think in the end that excellence - an understanding of what it is and a desire for it - is something that does not easily develop if they are not exposed to it. I see no instances of real excellence in my local school - as happy a place as it is.

Nevertheless, it is just silly to suggest that I am 'hothousing'. I don't give a rat's arse how good he is at anything in the end. But I want him to experience somewhere along the line what it's like to work bloody hard at something, the satisfaction which comes with an unexpected achievement, and to appreciate the beauty of things that he may not be able to achieve himself.

As for participating myself etc... well I do volunteer at school: I do canteen, reading groups, clean up days, help run fundraising events. But I also have a full-time job, am doing a part-time degree, have another part-time job plus run a business. Oh, and have two children under 6. It is laughable to suggest that I can put in enough time to be able to raise the sort of funds that you're suggesting.

More fundamentally, even if I did, I doubt that other parents would agree on how to spend it. I mean, other parents already object to the simple cost-free measure of having children shake hands at the end of the day. Why would they necessarily agree with me on how to spend those hard-earned funds? You and Enid already show diversity in your opinions from my own. I would rather offer half a dozen activities at a high standard. Some people would rather offer 20 activities at a basic level of participation, without any serious aspirations... That's fine, but that's not me.

You say 'if the school isn't good enough for your children, then imo it isn't good enough for anyone's children'... But that's just not true! We are in a solidly middle class area (and in fact we are at the poorer end of the scale) and the vast majority of ds's classmates have parents who could afford private education. They are choosing this public education because it's good enough for them. But it's NOT good enough for my son. I might like to say that it's not good enough for their children either, but it's not my place to make that judgement.

Many people would say that a happy school that is pretty good academically is good enough. Many people at our school DO say that. I happen to disagree... should I make them withdraw? Should I make them raise funds for things they don't think are necessary?

I think your suggestions are entirely impractical.

PS And I have just got back from an amazing 2 hour choir rehearsal at the school where I teach - still on a high. And it only reaffirms my view that I am in no way equipped to run a children's choir the way it should be run.