"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.....

its bound to be true middle classes up their own are - tarqwuin always has to be head boy - until hes 18 then he will have a gay experience he will never mention and when he is 24 he will take charlie ( not the butler - he is mine) just to help him get through the day

his mother will be so proud and tell all her friends at lunch with cake famcies ( the mother secretly fucking the financial consultant - she saw him initially over tax relief and one relief turned into another IYKWIM)

bloss I am not talking about your child though, I am talking about all children
actually these things are not that impractical, I do them all the time. As does Enid
as for getting agreement, no more difficult at a state school than a private school
but are you really saying that if the only available option is a "mediocre" music class, then better to have nothing at all??
I really cannot agree with that

sophie
:o

Well, I'm borderline about that, actually. I could probably give a choir session that was better than nothing. But some of the recorder lessons I've seen are worse than nothing in my view. I had a dreadful French teacher in Year 5 who forever spoiled my enjoyment of the subject. I always hated French (although I did it for another 5 years). Yet I ADORED German and Latin, spoke the former fluently by the end of school and topped the HSC in Latin (our A-levels equivalent - but only in our state so a candidature of about 50,000 kids (fewer in Latin obviously!)). So it simply can't have been the case that I'm not good at languages - but the lessons were so god-awful it put me off for life.

However, my school is already offering thoroughly mediocre music lessons - no need for me to kill myself to provide those! :)

I don't know about you, but the fundraising at our school goes for quite basic things - providing extra books and textbooks, improving the playground equipment, funding the occasional specialist PE teacher etc... I can't speak to yours and Enid's experiences, but finding the time to generate enough funds on top of that for, say, a first-rate music programme, really is unrealistic IME!

And I think it's a bloody miracle that I manage even now to spend a few hours a week helping out at school. I really do think it is impractical to suggest that I invest even more time into it!

The reverse snobbery on this thread is amazing.
My dd goes to a Private School because it has very small class sizes but mainyl because it's a great School and there's nothing we'd rather spend our money on.
DD is not hothoused, all i want is for her to be happy, she is happy there.

Why do you all have to talk about Tarquin and Bruno and all these silly names?
DD is in a class with lots of normal kids with normal names.

Or at least not totally chavvy like the local crappy School with all the Chelsea and Charmaines!!
(Oh Sorry, did that offned anyone?!)

I really do resent these portrayals of parents who send their kids to private school and their children. These ramblings about Tarquin and his butler are based more on prejudice than reality. I wouldn't dream of using such stereotypes when talking about the parents and children who go to state schools. Maybe these type of people do exist but they are in the minority. The Mumsnetters who are sending their kids to private school seem very far removed from these caricatures. From reading other threads on this issue I can see that they are mostly hard-working parents who want the best for their kids and are unhappy with what their local state school can provide for whatever reason. Most are not hugely well off and many make enormous sacrifices or rely on bursaries to be able to afford the private schools. In the area I live in the north I am considered and consider myself to be reasonably well-off as a part-time teacher with a dp who is also a teacher but this is very far from the kind of wealth and privilege you describe and there are as many or more people who would consider my income to be pitiful as there are who would consider it to be good. In fact, after I pay £700 a month in childcare (my kids are pre-school) I would have just over £100 a week income on a 3 day week without my dp's wage. The private school where I intend to send my dds has fees of £4,500 a year which is less than their nursery charges and considerably less than it would cost to increase our mortgage necessary to move into the catchment of a school where my kids wouldn't be eaten alive. I don't think there are any MNetters who have kids called Tarquin, live in mansions and have ponies so it's just not a relevant point in this forum.

I dont make it up (I change the names)

but everything I have said (ok not about the learning russian) is true. It may not be representative but it is a reality for me.

but I live in a posh rural bubble clearly as the private schools are more like £4,000 a TERM than £4,000 a year

I agree. I hate reverse snobbery and it is most definitely as horrid to see and read as snobbery itself. I find a lot of people on here seem to have a very odd view of private schools and it is not a view I have any experience of, Maybe there are private schools like the ones described, but I do firmly believe they are few and far between!

My DD will be starting private prep school this summer. We have chosen this school for a great deal of reasons, all very valid to us.

I was a secondary school teacher and have taught it two very different schools. Parental involvement was the single most important difference to me. Where there was the higher level of parental involvement and the most parents who valued education the children did better.

BTW, I actually can see NO difference in those people who pay to send to private and those who move to be in a better catchment. I know there are people on here who will often argue that private school is BAD, but it is seemingly okay to move to be in a better catchment area. can see the dfifference myself!

Thankyou springintheair, thought i was on my own there!

I'm sure my last comment will raise a few eyebrows but as i'm sure most will get, it was to illustrate how unfair and ridiculous and downright childish it is to be all v=clever about names.
It's o.k when you're in the majority of course with people backing you up and joining in the fun!

springintheair - DD's school fees will also be less than FT nursery fees.

I love this whole attitude that some private schools are ok as they don't cost much.

I dont think anyone was really slagging private schools on this thread (my dd2 goes to one - well the nursery part anyway).

I find the excuses amusing, that's all. In a way I admire Bruno's mum who told me that she wanted Bruno to go to private school as the mums were much nicer to have coffee with. At least she was honest

Ditto Enid. And the state primaries around here are fantastic - there is no reason not to send your children there except for snob value. The parents of these children drive around in ridiculously sized Porche Cayennes, X5s and the like - we live in suburbia, no dirt tracks here! They are just great big show offs!

I don't know of any private school round here that costs £4,500 a year! Blimey that's cheap!!

And if Hula is right and parental input is the most important difference - why bother paying for private education?

Angeliz, you are not on your own, there are absolutely loads of mumsnetters who put their children in private schools. And just because I don't like the system that doesn't mean that I necessarily dislike the individual parents who use it.

i have twins called chelsea and charmaine i think that was rude of you to say.

Some of my best friends are called Charmaine!!

must be crap schools if they only cost £4,500 a year

My dd's is relatively cheap then
Might look for a more expensive one just for 'snob value' and sell my Ford Focus so as not to let the side down.

(Thanks Dinosaur I try to stay away from these but it all gets a bit too personal at times)

Well, lucky you, to live in a posh rural bubble Enid. And are your neighbours called Tarquin? And do they have butlers? And what does that make you? I live in a deprived, mainly Asian area of the North West and I'm a part-time teacher in the state system yet you and others are suggesting that I am a) a snob b) only considering private school because I want my kids to have a posh accent and learn Russian. You are miles out.

ah dont get all arsey

the debate has moved on a bit and you are being too easy to wind up you lot

Don't kid yourself, Enid! You WERE slagging off private schools. Because you refuse to believe that anybody could possibly choose one except for the worst of reasons.

I gave a detailed explanation of my reasons, and all you could do was say:

'well, without knowing bloss better, yes I think it is all a red herring

I hear these riduculous trumped up excuses all the bloody time...'

I was sent to a state school as a child until it started to fail me. (The teachers told my parents that they simply couldn't give me what I needed.) My dh attended a state school and it failed him, but his parents didn't notice. His memories of school are a misery to him, and all he can say when I talk of my school days (which were by no means idyllic) is 'I feel like I missed out'. It breaks my heart to hear him talk about his lousy, lousy school days (at a state school with quite a good reputation). I wish his parents had valued schools the way mine did and had had the sense to pull him out and find somewhere better.

Mind you, it's individual. My elder sisters stayed in the state system a lot longer because it was fine for them - but the same school was failing me badly as I had different (greater) needs.

But actually, my parents were just snobs who were desperately trying to claw their way into the right social circles and find me a rich husband... Must go. Tarquin and Annabelle are fighting over who gets to take the pony out tomorrow. And the nanny isn't doing anything about it...

I think you missed my point Enid. I'm not saying the private school I'm considering is ok because it's cheap. I'm saying it actually costs less than nursery (which MNetters don't seem to have a problem with even though my neighbour can't afford it) and considerably less than a move to the catchment of a posh rural pocket with a nice local school which actually I can't afford. And I don't have to 'excuse' my choice either.

Agree, spring, hula, angeliz - I think there is a huge diversity in the independent sector that has not really been discussed here.
Most of the Tarquins and Arabellas in our wider area attend the state schools in an adjoining prestige 'burb where a 3 bed house costs at least 500k.
At ds' small, modest private primary, the parents are not at all posh or loaded and the children all have pretty ordinary names and lifestyles. A lot of us have chosen the school for similar reasons:

• concerns about SATs at seven
• concerns about how our badly struggling LEA hammers the better performing schools in the area in order to boost its ratings at all
• wanting a Christian education for our children and being willing to pay for it (in our case we, as practising Christians, are putting our money where our mouths are because we are not sure about church schools receiving state funding)
• wanting an enriched curriculum away from the dead hand of the National Curriculum, accessible to children of all abilities (school is not academically selective and has about 12% statemented children on its roll)

Absolutely, Harpsichordcarrier. If it isn't good enough for my children, how can I say it is good enough for anyone else's?

But I guess the cop-out is we all have different ideas of what 'good enough' is. My DH is absolutely confident that our local secondary will be 'good enough' for our boys. I'm not so sure that it will be 'good enough for what I want for them'. But I would vote tomorrow to abolish private education.

There may be some cases (eg bullying, special needs, unusual musical talent) where a school genuinely isn't good enough (or safe enough) for a particular child.

Unfortunately education is systemically f**d in this country.

oh so what

you implied that all parents that weren't prepared to fork out were happy to be mediocre

so ner ner ner ner

i'm behind enid

go on hit a pregnant woman. you private ed lot are all the same