stopped believing in decent state schools

[innercity]

I guess I need reassurance that in some parts of the country, in some areas, there are good state schools? That actually teach numeracy and literacy?! I don't believe this anymore...

DS is in Y4 in primary, which is a very desirable local south London comprehensive. Their class was consistently failed by a succession of NQT (3 in a row) and supply in between. This year they finally got the most experienced teacher in school.

But what do I see? They have not been taught formal division or multiplication (this is top table, supposedly working at 4c/4b); they do not do basic maths practice almost at all (15*3 or 128-45); maths provision is so scarce, it is safer to assume they are not taught anything.
How can differentiation work if the class hasn't been introduced to decimals, but you (individual pupil) can take decimal addition (choose that sheet) if everyone's doing addition?
OK, I explained to my son about decimals, but what kind of differentiation is that, this is just jumping without any plan?

They write 1 story in two weeks. I have taught DS spelling and he is now the best speller in class (english is his second language) - way ahead of others. How ridiculous is that?

I've checked maths and english papers for 10+ fro some independent schools and unless I work with him really seriously there is no way on Earth he can pass this in a year, not only because the topics asked there are not taught but also topics leading to topics there had not been taught or practised enough.

I am really wondering whether there is a huge cover up and dishonesty and English understatement and double-layered meaning when ppl (here on mumsnet) talk about "not tutoring," and how wonderful their child's school is??
DS school appears so creative, with workshops and art, bla bla, it's just that it doesn't do what the schools are for...

maybe it is funnyossity, but I would never have expected school to be treated as if in some sort of "isolation" from the rest of life....

I am responsible for my children's education... schools merely facilitate that part of it which all kids need to know........ my kids are lucky enough to not have SN, if they cannot read and write at 10, then it is my fault for either not having had enough input myself, or not getting the right formal education for them......

not a popular view I know....

Bonsoir, yes, but how does a 17 year old choose? I think my elder children , currently at university, might illustrate your point but I am not sure what I would have suggested differently given where their strengths (and weaknesses) lie.

So why are you crediting the school? Especially If as is likely you have chosen a school where parents are like-minded.

Some school systems in the past did take the children of illiterates and teach them. The music teaching system where we live manages to do the equivalent today! All I have to do is encourage and make space for practice. But the mainstream primary teaching is so woolly as to leave all but the children of the educated floundering.

I think an MA is the new BA and there's very little in the way of funding. I think loans are hard to get.

Slipshodsybil - my DP has always been very clear to the DSSs, who are 18 and 16, that they were going to need to earn their living and that, if they were going to maintain the standards to which they were accustomed, that meant doing studies that led to well-paid jobs. The message has been über-clear forever. No child in our family is going to have his/her university education paid for or even permitted if there isn't a clear idea of what it will lead to in terms of self-supporting jobs.

I think some public schools in the UK are a bit wishy-washy on this matter, personally! Far too much following of talents and not enough realism.

If your parents guarantee the loan, there is no problem at all!

It isn't only the schools. They win good applicants partly on the basis of Oxbridge entries. To allow that to fall too far spoils their selling point.

I agree - it's a complex marketing system and the truth behind headline statistics is only really apparent once DC have gone right through their education. There are schools where pupils' university entrance record is much better on paper than their life path but these things are hard to work out.

My DDs went to a very selective indie, one that is usually in the top 10 in league tables and around half their intake come from state primary schools. Not all are tutored either, indeed for bursaries they go into state primaries to find bright children and mentor them to try and counter the whole tutor culture, which is all about parental anxiety and competitiveness and nothing to do with the requirements of the school which is looking for ability and potential. Once there the state school pupils may not be as well crammed as the prep school kids but they soon catch up. There really is no way to distinguish between who comes from a state school and who from a prep by Year 8.

My own older DD was at an International equivalent of a state primary and I did have to cover some parts of the Maths curriculum she had not reached yet for the entrance exams, mainly algebra, BODMAS, the more complicated calculations with fractions, and word problems but the basics were all there and she caught on quickly. I think all the happy clappy stuff left her very confident and stimulated and my DDs still look back on it as the happiest period of their education.

Their year in the French system in a school run by a Paris Prefecture with teachers recruited there was the most miserable. Zero pastoral care, teachers who just went through the motions with workbooks and tests, absolutely no variation in teaching methods so that those with SpLDs struggled particularly. Last straw was when DD was sent home on the bus with mild concussion having been knocked out in the playground and DD2 and friend arrived home wet because the teachers had delivered the reception children to the bus ahead of the older ones and the school would not let them back in to go to the loo, so they had wet themselves on the pavement in the road outside.

Oh and the school considered they had no responsibility for the latter incident, no need to respond with changes to the care of Reception children, their responsibility ended at the school gate. In contrast the British School had a teacher on duty in the car park where the buses departed until they had all left and demanded a bus mother as well as the driver on each bus to look after the pupils.

Primary school in London is not the same as a prep school. They will not be prepping children for selective secondary schools. So they will not be drilling verbal and non verbal reasoning, but prep schools will. They will be prepping dc for Sats though, because that is how they are judged.

I live in London, adjacent to a grammar borough. Dd's headteacher was quite clear that if children wanted to try the 11 plus, then that was up to the parents. However, he said that the work done in school would not be sufficient for this, and parents should be willing to put in extra work at home. It is clear that is what is happening at the OP's school. It does explain why state grammar schools have so few FSM children. It's not because these children are less able, just because their parents have less resources to put in preparation for exams.

But Bonsoir is it really the job of a school to advise their pupils to head for the highest earning careers? Isn't that a natter for the parents and ultimately the children themselves?

I think that a school ought to give advice that is in the interests of their outgoing pupils rather than their marketing literature!

Of course I would never suggest that any family rely on a school's university and careers' advice alone. Many sources should be consulted and cross-checked (as for any major life decision).

The careers advice should ideally include issues such as how hard it is to obtain a particular type of job and how much it's paid, what kind of jobs different degree subjects might lead on to, etc. It's surely not the school's job to advise pupils to aim for high paying jobs? Success isn't only measured in how much money someone earns, and some people would rather do something that really interests them or contributes to society and earn less.

Hmm... a European colleague of mine whose son attends an 'outstanding' comprehensive was really p*ssed off at the school's attitude of encouraging all those fun courses that would not lead to a lucrative career.

He actually told the school's staff that well... 'Once school is over, you're out of his life. We have to be there for him forever.'

I have to say... there is a lot of truth to what he said.

Dromedary Success isn't only measured in how much money someone earns, and some people would rather do something that really interests them or contributes to society and earn less.

20-30 years ago, that would have been a reasonable thing to say. In today's world, there's a larger divide between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. It's a lot more difficult to actually enjoy life without a lot of money. Look at the house prices. How many people can afford a house these days without parental input... and more importantly, what jobs do they have?

Yes, house prices are far more difficult than they used to be. However, it is still possible for someone to work for a few years in a reasonable but not highly paid job (eg as a teacher) and then to buy a modest flat or house (with long mortgage). Far easier again for a couple. I appreciate that it is more difficult in London and the South East than elsewhere. On another post recently someone was asking for career suggestions for her daughter, and rejected almost every suggestion (including engineer and scientist) on the basis that they were not well paid enough. Well paid enough for what? She was assuming, because her daughter was at private school and went on expensive families with her family, that she must have that kind of lifestyle as an adult.

In my part of the country £30K is considered a good salary.
Having a fulfilling job IS important. Selling out for money and spending most of your life doing something that bores or frustrates you must be very grim and warp the personality! It may lead to dropping out / burn-out.
But the point is that whether a young person wants to aim for a highly paid job as a priority, or to aim for a job he/she is likely to enjoy, or to be really good at, or which will allow him/her to travel, or work flexibly etc, is a matter for the young person, not the school. A school which pushes children towards banking because that is where the money is is doing a bad job.

Dromesdary Engineer and scientist - that would be a very lucrative job outside of the UK. For some bizarre reason, the UK does not value those jobs as well as other countries.

I can understand the mother you talk about a little. We've been brought up to believe that with each generation, your lifestyle improves. The problem is that my generation (in my early 30s), for example, may be one of the first in however many years where having a better lifestyle than our parents may no longer be possible. My parents have a big house (abroad - could never have that size of house in the UK in my area unless we go into the seven digits). I went on expensive holidays with my family, and had other benefits the majority of the population may not have had. All on my dad's income. Mum was a SAHM.

I want my children to have the same benefits as I had - if not better. It's a natural thing to want as a parent. No parent wants to see their children worse off than them. I'm sure you don't. For DH and I to give our children what I had, we both have to work, choose industries that do willingly pay their employees, and be very ambitious in our careers. Also, there is a compromise to be made between 'what interests you' and 'what pays for all the things you want'. Weirdly enough, what frustrates me most about my life, for now, always is solvable with money.

If that's what everyone wants, the majority are going to be constantly dissatisfied, because standards of living are going down. There are not enough very highly paid jobs to go round those who were brought up in privilege. So it may be best to accept that there are many good things in life that do not cost much, and learn to enjoy them. I'm not saying that children should be encouraged to become shop assistants. Only that they should not be warned off jobs that would really suit them just because they do not earn miles above the average. Expensive holidays, big houses, fast cars, top private schools for the children - all very very easily and happily lived without. A decent home, money to go away ocasionally, take up hobbies, go out in the evening, not having to worry over every little piece of expenditure, and crucially as a buffer if things go wrong - that's the main thing I think. And having skills which mean that if something goes wrong (eg redundancy) you can pick yourself up again quickly.

Ehm, Dromedary sorry to say this - but to have what you have listed above, you need WAY (!!!) more than the median income here in the UK… meaning you need to get paid more than 50% of the population (probably around 75%+).

• a decent home (around my area, that starts at £350k)
• money to go away occasionally (if you have enough left after paying the mortgage)
• take up hobbies (as above)
• go out in the evening (as above)
• not having to worry over every little piece of expenditure (as above)
• a buffer if things go wrong (as above)

Really, it's the high house prices that make things bad...

You live in an expensive part of the country. House prices are high here, compared with most of the country (but not the South East and London), and you can buy a decent house for under £200K.

Ahem, I work for an Oxbridge university and our state school intake is nearly 60% of students.

But how many of those state school entrants are grammar schools? I never see this data. You cannot lump all state schools together..................some LEAs have 0% to Oxbridge. This is a whole LEA..............

blueberry the fair access schemes don't work in quite the way you think, see here. www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work The universities really do target those pupils from genuinely disadvantaged backgrounds either in terms of schooling, learning difficulties, social or family background. Admissions Officers are not fools they can distinguish between good and bad schooling irrespective of whether it is state or private, grammar or comprehensive. The problem is at the end of the day they are selecting, so schools that select have cohorts with better chances. And the real Fair Access battle is getting the information, motivation and role models into those geographical areas and schools that are under represented.

mm... a European colleague of mine whose son attends an 'outstanding' comprehensive was really pssed off at the school's attitude of encouraging all those fun courses that would not lead to a lucrative career*

That wouldnt happen in my dcs ordinery but outstanding comprehensive. I attended a "pathway" interview for my dd 16 last night for her A levels.
She wanted to take Maths, Physics, History and Psychology. Deputy Head was very pleased with her choices except Psychology which he felt was not considered serious enough a science for her and in the end talked her round to biology. There is no way on earth they would have been happy with her taking a "fun" course