Not one pupil in Knowsley went to Oxbridge last year and only 2% went to RG universities.

[thebestisyettocome]

In adjoining areas, Sefton and Halton, admission to Oxbridge was also 0%.

I'm really angry about this. No wonder people who can afford to send their children to private school.

I'm going to read all of this later - but I want to say that I left school in Secton over thirty years ago, and at that time expectations were definitely low.
My father was a councillor and actually heard commennts from Tory other councillors such as 'what do they need history for? They're only going to work in a factory.'
My secondary school's 'careers' lesson involved a man from the Girobank giving us a talk about working there, and for the rest of the term we chatted while the teacher got her hair done by an aspiring hairdresser who had curling tongs in her bag.

At sixth form (different school), there was no advice on university choices, or choosing the right subjects for maximum chance of success.
The prospectuses were kept in the head of year's office and you could wonder in if you felg like it. I had no idea about RG, and only vaguely about Oxbridge as a boy from a few years previously had gone to Oxford and was mentioned by others who'd known him.

I was taken to Oxford for a weekend as part of a group of a dozen or so who they thought showed potential (must have been one of their early pushes to attract state school kids), but that was the extent of my 'support.' Actually, one of my A level subjects was art, so it would have been a waste of time even if I'd had the inclination or encouragement to work for it.

Anyway, rant over. I can well believe and empathise with thebest's interpretation of the figures - although I'd love to be proved wrong and that things have changed in the last thirty years.

Talkinpeace, I forgot the quote marks earlier - it was about thebest's DP not mine.

And if you think Cecily the journey from Knowsley to Allerton is an easy one you really don't know Liverpool at all.

Miranda, I think you misunderstood TalkinPeace's point - Liverpool LEA is the grammar school while Knowsley LEA is the secondary modern. (A simplification, obviously) Though Liverpool does still have one remaining grammar school. Knowsley does, however, cover a wide area - not all of which is deprived.

Well this is a surprise, I thought the future was Knowsley: here

So what are the problems in Knowsley then?

Cecily. I'm really not sure what your agenda is or why you keep saying not all of Knowsley is deprived? Perhaps that's true but what you fail to say is that it is the 8th most deprived borough in the country.
Have you ever actually been to the place?

I get frothy about education too. However I can also see that its not just about education.

So you know its a deprived area, do you not understand that children in deprived areas will suffer the problems I mentioned earlier - the ones that you dismissed.

Er. I have't dismissed them. I just tried to argue against them being used as a smokescreen by those who don't want to admit or don't care that education in these areas is below par.
Hth.

I had a good education (in a deprived area).
I got good grades.
However I chose not to go to Uni because I was worried about moving away. My parents had never been to Uni and it was all a bit foreign to me.

How was I failed?

If you made a conscious decision not to go to university you weren't failed. But those children who wanted to go to university and were bright enough to do so have been failed if their school didn't facilitate this.

I don't think it's 'blaming the parents' to wonder how many actually applied to these universities - it's just trying to understand the nature of the problem. i.e. are they applying but being disproportionately rejected (and if so why? grades? interview performance?), or are they not applying, in which case why not (lack of confidence? grades not predicted to be good enough? not enough support/advice with the application? low aspirations?)

It's interesting to me as I went to a 'rough'/below average comprehensive where there was no 6th form and university was just not really on the radar of most pupils - I had to attend an FE college to do A-levels, and went on to a good RG university. What made the difference for me was my parents, I think - both university-educated, plus my dad was a lecturer so knew the system, that meant I had plenty of good advice and encouragement at home, plus the expectation

Compare DH's school where there was a 100% pass rate in exams and it was assumed without question that every child would go on to university - DH was in fact the first in his family to stay in education past 16, so had less help at home, but it mattered less because his school was so good.

I can see that if you have low aspirations or lack of support both in school and at home, it's very difficult for a teenager to be able to inspire and organise themselves sufficiently, and while a bright child can do well even at a bad school it takes a lot of motivation and self-teaching, which is not easy to do especially if you don't have parents encouraging you.

I do agree with you Ephiny but surely schools should be able to step into the breach where bright kids have low aspirations and little parental support?

Ephiny
If both your parents were University and you are over 20 then you are VERY unusual. As when DH and I went only 1 in 20 went to University. So you are the 1 in 400 that is most likely to go.

What the RG Unis are being hauled up for is "widening participation"
getting those whose parents did not go to consider it.

DDs uber bright best friend is one of those. Trying to persuade her to do non vocational course ideas on the basis that Uni is to learn how to learn is an uphill battle as her parents genuinely do not 'get' the concept of learning one thing and doing another.

^Cecily. I'm really not sure what your agenda is or why you keep saying not all of Knowsley is deprived? Perhaps that's true but what you fail to say is that it is the 8th most deprived borough in the country.
Have you ever actually been to the place?^

Yes, I have! Though I have not lived there. I would say that Kirkby is a very deprived area, while Knowsley village itself is at the other end of the scale; and, of course, there are other places in between. I quite accept that it is the 8th most deprived borough in the country. I also think that parents in Knowsley village are more likely to choose a secondary in Liverpool than those in Kirkby, which will then impact on secondary school results. Is Huyton or Roby to Allerton really such a difficult journey? Maybe, on public transport?

Yes it was an unusual situation - both my parents grew up working class and poor (very poor indeed in my mum's case), but they in turn were lucky enough to have parents who believed strongly in education (despite being poorly educated themselves, my mum's dad couldn't read or write!). Also, and I know it's controversial on here, but it was the grammar school system that gave them their chance in life, as it did many poor but bright children in those days.

I guess it's schools and parents that matter, difficult to say one is more important than the other.

But what are you actually trying to say Cecily? You were giving the impression that Knowsley isn't deprived (a point you have now conceded isn't correct). You have also pointed out Knowsley kids could go to grammar school even though it's in another area completely and only takes 120 (v lucky) kids a year. You have also asserted Knowsley kids are travelling out of the area for their education even though you have no actual evidence of this.
I really don't understand your crazy arguments on here. What exactly are you trying to argue? That it's all hunky dory in Knowslwy or that it doesn't matter?

statistically maternal wealth and academic qualifications are the BEST indicator of how children will do.

And yes, grammars when they were truly open to all were a good thing.
The rump of them that are left are just divisive - look at the results for Kent or Lincolnshire to see how rotten the chances of the untutored children at the other schools are.

Yes I agree the grammar situation isn't really the same now (and it was never perfect, but it did do a lot of good IMO).

^But what are you actually trying to say Cecily? You were giving the impression that Knowsley isn't deprived (a point you have now conceded isn't correct). You have also pointed out Knowsley kids could go to grammar school even though it's in another area completely and only takes 120 (v lucky) kids a year. You have also asserted Knowsley kids are travelling out of the area for their education even though you have no actual evidence of this.
I really don't understand your crazy arguments on here. What exactly are you trying to argue? That it's all hunky dory in Knowslwy or that it doesn't matter?^

I am merely saying that while Knowsley is the 8th most deprived borough in the country and some of it is very deprived, that does not mean every little bit of it is deprived. That some Knowsley children have parents with both the means and inclination to send them to school in Liverpool. (The grammar school thing is a bit of a red herring, but I think the Blue Coat School is just as accessible from parts of Knowsley as it is from parts of Liverpool). That I had a hunch that many pupils leave Knowsley for their secondary education - something that TalkinPeace's statistics seem to confirm. That the majority of secondary pupils in Knowsley have to make a choice of onward destination at 16, and the figures do suggest they do not stay in Knowsley.

Yes I understand those points Cecily. You've made them several times already, although I don't agree with them. My question however is, what is the wider point you are trying to make? Are you saying for example that there isn't a problem or that it doesn't matter?
You seem to have had a very strong response to my op but I'm still wondering why.

It would be interesting to find out the standard of the teachers (and their attitude to those they are teaching) at the schools the OP is describing, and how much they are paid, in relation to the standards in other schools bordering the area. Where I live, on the South Yorks/North Notts borders I was, not so very long appalled to hear teachers talking about their pupils as if they were something the teachers would not step on. However, an extremely damning Ofsted report on a failing school showed that, although the teaching was indentified as total shite, the parents were 'happy' with the
school.
I have met people who say that their child is thinking of applying to XYZ university and when you say to them - 'what did you think about it at after your open day visit' they say 'what are you talking about, what's an open day' or they say 'our Mary wants to be a Nurse' so you say 'That's good, what A levels will she do' and they say things like 'Drama, Geography and I.T', there seems to be so little guidance given at the schools andI think these problems need solving from both ends - teachers attitudes and the low aspirations/lack of parental interest of the people in the areas concerned

Because I am the sort of person who likes to look beyond shock/horror headlines. If you want to believe that it is a plain fact being that the LEA is sub-standard and has piss-poor expectations for the children therein, feel free to do so. What do you propose to do about it?

but surely schools should be able to step into the breach where bright kids have low aspirations and little parental support?

But sometimes you just cant override what is being taught at home.

41% of pupils in Knowsley went to university. That means under half. So we are not talking about failed bright children not being able to go. It demonstrates that not university doesnt register highly to many of those children.

And I go back to what I said before. Debt will put off alot of people, especially if they come from a background where parents wont be able to help support them.