Education superclass?

[Amber2]

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100245274/it-is-much-worse-than-sir-john-major-says-a-new-superclass-is-being-created-in-london/

This is interesting coming from John Major ...sounds like more lobbying along the lines of the Sutton Trust but do people really think it's much worse than it ever has been..? and this is do with with the inexorable rise of London...and the global money flowing in there...and so to creating an elite superclass of private schools also ...not just any old private school but a small handful of elite ones, applications to which have reached record numbers, presumably more and more from London and from overseas with over inflation rises in fees pricing out the traditional middle classes that used to be able to afford these schools.

The village I grew up in had a bus service once a week, or you could walk or cycle to the next village 1.5 miles away, which had the shops and regular buses. I was reliant on lifts from my parents until we moved into the nearby City when I was a teenager. I prefer to live not in the villages, but in the town with the schools, shops, tradesmen, railway station, buses, nightclub, cinema, swimming pool, sports facilities, a variety of community groups, restaurants, pubs etc, all in walking distance in one direction, and countryside and tiny villages with nice pub lunches in the other direction, and transport to bigger places for more exciting or cultural activities if it all seems too parochial after a while. I think places like this are somewhat under threat, though - either the countryside will disappear around them as they expand because they are so popular, or they will lose their heart when bigger competitors turn them into commuter towns, or they will eventually join up with larger towns and become suburbs.

I have read this whole thread with interest - it's taken me days to get through it!

I have dcs at the type of schools referred to in the article. I agree with shooting that they are not at all full of the global elite at the moment, but the way things are going, the trend is going to be in that direction. My dh and I both have professional qualifications but have not followed the money in our careers. We earn an awful lot less combined than the £250k referred to up thread, and can only afford the schools (just) because we have lived in our house for a long time and have a mortgage that, thanks to current interest rates, is tiny. Younger people in an equivalent career situation to us will not be able to contemplate private schooling alongside the cost of buying or renting a house. I think this will mean that over time the schools in question will become more and more the preserve of the super rich and out of reach of many of the types of professions who use them now.

I do think the slight obsession with Oxbridge/ivy league in threads like this is an extension of the primary school gate hysteria about secondary schools.

I feel sad for my own children that unless they achieve stellar career and financial success they won't afford to live where they have grown up, but as a northerner I know there are plenty of great jobs/houses/schools outside London.

I suspect market forces as ever will prevail. If fees get too high for most private school parents to afford then they will come down eventually. We are already seeing this in recession hit areas with a few going into the state sector even and others merging (usually the not so good schools or those in areas where very few parents can afford to pay fees).

I wonder how governors, heads and teachers would feel about working in schools that offer the very best of British education to everyone but the British? I'm not sure that scenario is sustainable.

But Bonsoir, we are told that if that becomes the case, the schools will just relocate to another country.

That is an interesting thought as London becomes more international.

I am still not sure that weI have the same idea of what a 'global elite' is but internationally, though UK schools are strong, I do not see their dominance among the most successful people. They are prominent in UK politics but that is a different group. The universities attended are extremely varied too. Things might change for generations coming through but I don't think world domination by British Schools is coming just yet.

To sum up my views on this thread before it disappears, I think that the UK has always had an educational superclass. There were always the lucky few like John Major and Adonis whose fate was smiled upon.

There have always been unwritten rules and subtle procedures to getting a step up for your child and these are underpinned by a general premise that some people's children deserve better than other people's children.

Time and time again research shows that children are born with equal potential and that the way it is developed from babyhood is what makes children succeed.

We have an education system that is far from a meritocracy and our political system, and therefore the whole country's success, depends on it at its peril. I have more respect for £1 earned by a hardworking tradesman than I have for the thousands earned by someone that went to an elite school to gain their economic power. Until the power balance is changed we don't have equal opportunity.

"Time and time again research shows that children are born with equal potential and that the way it is developed from babyhood is what makes children succeed."

I have never read anything, ever, that suggests children are born with equal potential.

The gaps between schools (of all types) can vary significantly and unfortunately you have to keep a close eye on it all the time. I have learned at my expense that schools can change dramatically even in one year and you can never take a good education for granted just based on ofsteds, results, name of schools, amount of fees paid, type of catchment and so on.

I strongly disagree with the idea that you can plug gaps/make up differences at home if the education you receive at school all day is very poor. Whilst it is relatively easy to do this in KS1, as you go into KS2 and KS3 this becomes impossible or enormously stressful and at the detriment of sanity.

When we had a decent year with a good teacher, we were able to plug some gaps, like with maths extension, museum/theatre/concerts, reading extensively, music, etc... and it was all very stress free and doable.

But where we had very poor teaching and there where gaps in everything - and things like comprehension, grammar, spellings, etc were not covered, we found ourselves facing a huge wall of catching up, meaning our children would not have had a life outside of these four walls.

I feel strongly that where children are at school virtually all day, most of the learning should be done there with a bit of topping up at home. I also strongly believe that education provision is far too patchy and there aren't enough measures to bring more consistency across the board.

No one has ever suggested environment is king. Time and again in fact studies show genes matter a lot and that perhaps it is 50% genes and 50% environment.

Completely second Blueberrypots post ......education at home should be about enrichment (often outside the curriculum) or topping up and not to fill in fundamental gaps for bad /lack of teaching ...and agree as children go up from KS2/KS3 if there is fundamental gap plugging that has to be done it can become "enormously stressful and to detriment to sanity"

"Time and time again research shows that children are born with equal potential and that the way it is developed from babyhood is what makes children succeed."

passedgo - you are stating the above as some sort a given fact ...do you really think all humans are born with the same IQ? So it is 100% nurture and 0% nature as to how they develop?

I do believe there are some children at an early age will have say a greater propensity to language or numbers...whether they go on to develop this skills to an advanced level academically may be down to nurture, parental influence, what school they go to, opportunities etc. but to say that genetics plays no part in IQ or potential is a fallacy.

"I strongly disagree with the idea that you can plug gaps/make up differences at home if the education you receive at school all day is very poor. Whilst it is relatively easy to do this in KS1, as you go into KS2 and KS3 this becomes impossible or enormously stressful and at the detriment of sanity."

The thing is, many parents are not even aware that the gaps are there as the system sets the bar so low.

this is true pickled, especially where the teacher "talks up" the levels the child is at or their class is actually at...you sometimes find out the reality much later

The thing is, many parents are not even aware that the gaps are there as the system sets the bar so low

absolutely agree with this as well. This happened to us too, but we wised up in the end.

I would be interested to hear your comments on this thread of mine on KS1 NC levels.

Cognitive development is affected far more by physical interference in a child's development through pregnancy, health in the mother, impact on the child's brain when young.

The brain has evolved over millions of years and that pace of physical development hasn't suddenly changed. We are the same when we are born (give or take a few pre-conditions due to gender and race) but these slight differences don't affect our potential to learn and study unless there is a distinct learning disability which is usually caused by some physical or chemical difference.

We are kidding ourselves to think that some people are born genetically special. The grey matter is just that, waiting for the windows to be opened, the information to come in and the pathways to connect. How that happens is entirely dependent on physical and neurological influences.

And gifted musicians don't count, music has a specific impact on brain patterns which is in effect another form of neurological influence.

There has not been enough research into this area because those funding and supporting research have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. What boffin is going to want a thousand other boffins eager to take their place? We love to think of ourselves as better than all those foreigners who 'are really best at sport' and those working class people who 'just want a simple life anyway'. This ideology is verging on the immoral.

Any neurological research that does manage to battle its way through the half-truths (I would call it spin) goes to prove remarkable effects on the brain by outside influence.

Some children may have struck lucky some time in their development to be able to become extreme specialists when they reach full development and some children may appear 'brighter' than others because again, something has 'struck' and caused an extraordinary neurological change. Sometimes something strikes that has a detrimental effect on the child as well but it is rarely permanent unless there is damage.

No child is born into this world more capable than another of achieving 9 A*s. To presume so is really just a bit thick.

These bright children level out eventually. I don't see why they should get an opportunity to go to a more pushy school when they are already at an advantage.

Am I the only person that believes this?

Yes, you are. Plenty of children are born with an IQ well under 100 and no matter what you do you cannot change that. Many have learning disabilities. Whilst of course they can be helped at school they will not be getting a double first from Oxford. You can see all this in studies of adopted children. I think it's about 50./50 genes and environment, so no way a blank slate which is why it can matter if you marry someone who is not very bright if you are (although if two very bright children marry the child is often slightly less bright but still likely to be brighter than if two with an IQ of 90 marry).

passedgo Yes I think you are.

The evidence for innate ability superseding environment is very strong.

Think of your own family and you must recognise all sorts of intelligences (ability or inability) in your offspring from you or your partner (emotional, spatial, musical, mathematical, languages, sporting etc).

Separated identical twin-studies are also hugely informative.

MENSA can recognise a genius from a very young age.

Normal distribution is present for all complex polygenic abilities i.e. 50% of a population will be above average and 50% below average.

Look at some of the research on CAT test results and GCSE / A-level predictions; scarily accurate.

The notion of brain elasticity is being debunked.

Etc Etc

This does not diminish your arguments but we do have to recognise our DNA will put a floor and a ceiling on our achievements.

I think the argument about IQ is a red herring in this context.

Most people have average IQs, yet attainment is so divided along socio economic lines. We are not talking about very high achievement here, we are just talking about schooling, which is designed around the average IQ anyway.

The IQ argument winds me up as I have heard it used so many times by teachers and parents alike to excuse the actual lack of provision a child is getting (both from school and home). "He/she just isn't cut out for maths..." "he/she just isn't that academic...isn't inclined, is slow, etc.." especially winds me up when used on very young children. Talk about branding a child because nobody wants to put effort in.

I don't expect my children to all achieve the same results, but I do expect the same effort to go in. I fully recognise that the same amount of effort does not equate to the same results, but should equate to good progress for that individual.

I agree blueberry, too many children are left behind on the basis of IQ tests which really just measure the status quo, do not measure potential.

The children with the best advantage (by being born in the right place at the right time) are given further advantage by gaining access to privileged schools. This is now giving us a spiral of educational attainment which leaves a larger number on the floor.

Genius is not recognised at a very young age. Ability by advantage may be measured but the human brain is largely one size fits all. It may stretch in different places but there is no way that a healthy baby's brain is that different at birth from another's.

Where is this intelligence gene? The only one they've found close to it indicates a 1.29 point difference in IQ.

Take a look at this map
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png

Are we saying this massive global inequity is genetic? I hope not.

This made me laugh:

Normal distribution is present for all complex polygenic abilities i.e. 50% of a population will be above average and 50% below average.

Think about it.

You want the evidence of genes / intelligence and achievement (these are studies of literally hundreds of thousands of UK children).

Behav Genet. 2012 Sep;42(5):699-710. doi: 10.1007/s10519-012-9549-7. Epub 2012 Jun 15.
Multivariate genetic analyses of cognition and academic achievement from two population samples of 174,000 and 166,000 school children.
Calvin CM, Deary IJ, Webbink D, Smith P, Fernandes C, Lee SH, Luciano M, Visscher PM.
Source
Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ, UK. [email protected]

and if you want to know roughly how your child will do at A-level check out the research pages of GL Assessment

e.g. Sex, Intelligence and educational achievement in a national cohort of over 175,000 11-year old schoolchildren in England.
Calvin, C. M., Fernandes, C., Smith, P., Visscher, P. M., & Deary, I. J.
Intelligence, 38, 424-432, 2010 or anything from Professor Strand (Government advisor for the last labour government) and the University of Durham Education Department.

Oddsins can you explain these numbers? I don't understand them

The estimate of intelligence heritability was large in both cohorts, consistent with previous studies (h (2) = 0.70 ± 0.14, England; h (2) = 0.43 ± 0.28-0.67 ± 0.31, The Netherlands), as was the heritability of academic achievement variables (h (2) = 0.51 ± 0.16-0.81 ± 0.16, England; h (2) = 0.36 ± 0.27-0.74 ± 0.27,

They used 1000 twins and compared them to many thousands of singles so although the sample is large the real evidence can only be measured in the twins as singletons have individual gene history.

Why do people think that athletic ability is often genetic, but intelligence isn't?!?!?

Do genes discriminate between athletic features and intelligence?