No Shit Sherlock : Supportive parents do more than good schools to boost children's exam results

[TalkinPeace2]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19923891

You don't say ....

Brycie, I have just been reading another thread and your children are at fee paying schools.

"abolish ALL selection in state funded schools"

This is the classic, classic cop out. Firstly, it wouldn't make any difference, as has been so well pointed out by many posters, unless the curriculum and the work sent home changes. Secondly, reverting to a more traditional curriculum (which is what I think would be required) is so innately unpleasant to some ideologues that they would rather see children thrown on the scrap heap than agree to it.

Hullygully, I was repeating your reference to factory fodder - I meant children being let down at school and their futures being decided by that. Perhaps you meant something different.

Yes, they are at fee-paying secondary schools with a more traditional approach. They were at "comprehensive" primaries.

I had the priviledge of giving a talk at a KIPP school in the US and was very interested to see what they were doing to overcome huge social inequalities through education.

For those pupils it is assumed that they will not get support at home or have resources such as internet etc.

They have loooooooong days. They get masses of homework. They get short holidays.

The results are phenominal but I simply cannot see that this is a programme that cab be rolled out at a macro level.

I love the title of this thread.
Just thought I'd share that.

Wordfacctory: I'm interested in your ""they get masses of homework". Can you explain more? Like, how do they ensure it's done? Are they stricter? Do they have homework clubs? Have you any more information? Thanks very much.

They are very strict.

KIPP school places are awarded by lottery, but they are hugely oversubscribed so anyone refusing to keep up will ot hold their place. Remember many of these pupils come from homes more deprived than anyhting we se in the UK. Being poor, from the wrong part of town etc is no excuse. Cos every student is in the same boat.

Students having trouble with particular subjects will be expected to attend Saturday school.

It's tough!

www.kipp.org/

See I think we have an ideological opposition to that in the UK.

But thanks word factory, and thanks for the link, TalkinPeace.

Brycie
Sorry, but if your kids are at private school, how the HELL would you know what is being done to support the underprivileged
who you spend good money to keep your kids away from.

My children were at non-selective primaries and I spent a lot of time in them (and helped with all the work coming home). I'm mainly talking (as you should have noted) about basics, reading, writing, arithmetic, basic science, I've said it loads of times. That means primary.

But in the US, you choose to live in a town with good schools (and possibly higher taxes) if you can afford it. Or for the poorer but involved families you do what you can to get your kids into better schools. For example when I worked in Chicago one of our secretaries fought to get her son into the school local to the University where she worked, as it was much better than the one near where she lived.

But anyway - great attempt at a smear. I'm not trying to smear or attack teachers, it seems entirely to do with the curriculum to me. But if you defend the curriculum that's what I would challenge.

I thought one of the most interesting things about it when I visited was the students' motivation.

They seemed very driven, despite the fact that when they went home at night they wouldvery much be the outlier in their community. But I guess the hours of KIPP are so long that Kipp becomes their new community.

Also isn't smearing what you do when you've nothing else to say? Flip, and I thought we were having a debate about something vitally important. Silly me.

I could be completely wrong, but I though the G&T programme was initially introduced to keep tabs on the intelligent youngsters who appeared to slip off the radar by secondary, especially those from disadvanatged backgrounds.

But like so much else in the UK, the programme was co-opted by the middle classes.

The issue for me, as a primary school teacher, is that the most deprived children enter school ALREADY at least 2 years behind the 'middle class R4 children'. Schools can help the disadvantaged progress but not catch up. Not unless the most disadvantaged attend school for longer - either on a daily basis or in the holidays.

As soon as you put in initiatives to support the poorest they tend to be co-opted by the middle classes - just like Sure Start has been in England.

That is pretty much the KIPP ethos star.

The disadvantaged will need to be in school twice as long as the advanatged, work twice as hard and cannot be allowed to slip back in the holidays.

I have a feeling that if disadvantaged kids got put into school for longer to catch up, there'd be middle class complaints about how come they weren't getting the extra free childcare.

It seems to me that major investment should be in 0-3. Enormous expansion of HVs. Children shouldn't be allowed to fail before they are 3 years old.

I haven't heard of KIPP. Is it an English initiative?

My Dad's parents were shit. Totally unsupportive of education. His father was intelligent though. Inherited intelligence plus the fact that he lived near to relatives who were decent human beings and supported learning - they had books in the house and had their DC sit down and do their homework rather than leaving them to cook or parent their siblings whilst they fecked off to the pub - got him ready for and made sure he excelled at his grammar school. On my mother's side, one of her siblings failed the 11+ because of exam stress. My grandmother took on extra cleaning jobs and my grandad worked overtime to pay fees to get him a decent education. As opposed to one of his cousins, who passed the 11+ but whose parents refused to pay for the cost of the uniform, so they couldn't go.

You can do whatever you want to the education system. You could pour money into schools. It's never going to change the fact that parents who care about their children's education and support and encourage learning will have DC who do better at school than those who don't have involved parents. It's not about money or class, it's about showing them that learning matters and supporting it from the moment they're born. Why do you think past governments targeted help and free nursery hours at Pre schoolers? The idea was to narrow the gap at reception level, by ensuring that those DC with parents who weren't encouraging learning at home got some support before they started school. Unsurprisingly, the parents who this was designed to target didn't take up these opportunities anywhere near as often as those who didn't need the help! Just like with SureStart.

Loads of x posts as I got distracted mid post.

'Co-opted by the middle classes' is liberal shorthand for 'the people we tried to help told us to feck off or couldn't be arsed to take up the offer.'

'I have a feeling that if disadvantaged kids got put into school for longer to catch up, there'd be middle class complaints about how come they weren't getting the extra free childcare.'

No. You'd have parents of the DC it was designed to help doing the equivalent of those mothers passing fast food through the railings at the school when they tried to introduce healthy dinners.

Brycie I absolutely see your point about parental involvement contributing to social immobility.

But if you do away with parental involvement, as you suggest, then the effect is to bring all children down to the level of those whose parents aren't involved.

Surely the better solution is to increase involvement of the uninterested parents, rather than decrease the involvement of the interested parents?

I know that is easier said that done. But surely that is the right way round, in principle?