7% at comps get AAB

[Judy1234]

Just looking at today's FT schools tables/reports. Only 7% of comprehensives get pupils with grades AAB at A level. 62% of pupils get that at the best 50 independent schools (about 70 such pupils a year per school) and about 31 from selective grammar schools.

However the top 10 comps have 31% getting AAB which isn't too bad and the bottom 50 comps have 1% of pupils getting AAB.

The best comperhensive - Watford Grammar gets 8 Oxbridge offers a year.

But then surely you'd expect that. If the school isn't selective, whether it's fee paying or not, you can't expect to get lots of high a level grades so why does the Government want more children proportionately from comprehensives and (new rule) whose parents didn't get to university? It's like saying I want people who aren't right for this given preference over those that are. That these really bright pupils from the state grammar school whose parents both went to univesrity will not be allowed in but these rather thick children who have left it too late to be brought up to an Oxbridge standard age 19 will get preference.
www.ft.com/cms/s/4037c7f2-ceae-11db-b5c8-000b5df10621.html

What I'm getting at Xenia is that while I respect your decision to educate your children privately (and despite being a teacher in the state system and agonising over it I've made the same choice for mine) I do find your approach to children in state schools - i.e. How peculiar that they don't seem to do well in their local Bogcomp and how unfortunate that this means they can't go to Oxbridge - just a little hard to stomach.

Xenia what would you do if your DH couldn't afford to send your 5 children to private school?

Would you go out and work in ANY job even if it meant working alongside "common" people ?

I do understand why it's harder. I think if 100% of your class are going to excellent universities which is the environment my children are at then they're likely to go.

I am concerned that the route to getting to good univesrities via grammar schools in most of the country has disappeared and I am concerned there seems to be less, not more access to that higher education for poorer but clever children who seem to have been sacrificed on the altar of the comprehensive equality, lowest common denominator stuff whereas we could pluck them out and set them high. Instead it's as if we kicked away the ladder they used to have. If we abolished all state schools and gave parents vouchers to use at any school we might get more real choice.

Entrants are irrelevant though, if you're talking about people who complete the course. And I am not making it up, believe me. Maybe Oxbridge does things differently. Of course the other teeny flaw in that 50%10% argument is that the private schools are selective.

Hate to tell you this Xenia, but grammar schools have and had much in common with private schools. 1) They select 2) They educate and have only ever educated a minority (and largely a relatively privileged and middle-class minority) of children.

Those who were not fortunate enough to pass the 11+ were on the scrap heap (which automatcally meant different exams and certainly no Oxbridge or even university entrance) at AGED 11!!

I accept that grammar schools once allowed a tiny amount of working class children to access an education and eventually a lifestyle that they would never have been able to reach otherwise but this was a tiny percentage of children and at the expense of the majority.

And how can you be both concerned about working-class kids getting into university on the one hand and then supporing Oxbridge, private schools and all the other things which help maintain and reinforce class divisions and barriers to poor kids getting a good education on the other?

I understand that there is a strong tendency for recruitment panels in all walks of life to select people who most resemble themselves in terms of background, culture, schooling, gender and race. I don't suppose Oxbridge tutors are any different from the norm in this respect.

blackandwhitecat - I don't think that private schools in the UK harm the chances in life of children who go to state school. One of the great things about private schools is that they allow for experimentation in education in a way that the state cannot afford. British private schools are the best schools in the world, according to PISA, and for British society as a whole that must be a good thing - to help raise standards by creating a superior benchmark.

The biggest problem in the UK is the failure of state education, and in particular the abolition of selective state education that gave clever poor children a real chance of a decent education.

'The biggest problem in the UK is the failure of state education'

Anna, the state education system is not failing and I find this statement really offensive (especially as a teacher in the state system as is my partner). There are state schools that do well in the league tables and state schools which do not (which absolutely doesn't mean that they are failing and very often the opposite). There are some kids who are 'failed' partly by the system in that middle-class parents have been enabled and encouraged to abandon their local comp in favour of faith schools, schools in different areas and, of course, private schools but most kids who do poorly academically are failed long before they get to school at all by their parents, society etc etc. Schools which appear to be failing (i.e they are at the bottom of the league tables) may be doing a fantastic job but they cannot compensate for otehr failings in a child's life and they cannot magic good exam results for children with low aspirations, little support etc who end up together.

'I don't think that private schools in the UK harm the chances in life of children who go to state school.'

I don't think I said this but private schools do have the effect of reinforcing class divisions. They also mean that middle-class parents can avoid their local schools (as I admit I have done for my kids) which means these schools are deprived of the kind of kids and parents who might be in a position to raise aspirations and performance in their local comps.

'One of the great things about private schools is that they allow for experimentation in education in a way that the state cannot afford.'

Maybe but actually most private schools are extremely traditional in their approach (this is their attraction for many parents) and experimenation is alive and well and absolutely vital in state schools.

'British private schools are the best schools in the world, according to PISA, and for British society as a whole that must be a good thing - to help raise standards by creating a superior benchmark.'

But it's not that hard to be 'superior' when you select the best kids (who are already self-selecting because their parents have chosen these schools and can afford them!).

'and in particular the abolition of selective state education that gave clever poor children a real chance of a decent education.'

But as you say grammar schools were selective. They educated less than 50% of the population and this was largely the middle-class privileged half. Yes, the odd working-class child got the opportunity to achieve in a grammar school but these were in the minority all of his and her friends and neighbours were written off at the secondary modern.

blackandwhitecat - to say that that state system is failing is not a direct attack upon you or your husband as teachers, it is a comment on the government.

State school systems fail, in my opinion, when parents are prepared to go to a lot of trouble, including paying money, to send their children to other schools in preference to state schools. In France, where I live, for many years private schools were only for those who weren't able to keep up in the excellent state system. That is unfortunately no longer the case.

I don't think private schools reinforce class divisions any more or less than other systems. The human race is very ingenious and always finds ways of sorting itself into hierarchies (a natural state of being).

I don't agree that there isn't lots of experimentation in private schools. My experience is that they offer far more than state schools, as they should.

I quite agree that selective private schools have an advantage when it comes to being the best. That doesn't negate the fact that they are and create a positive benchmark.

I went to a grammar school between 1977 and 1979. It was full of working class children.

'to say that that state system is failing is not a direct attack upon you or your husband as teachers, it is a comment on the government.'

The system isn't failing. The system has weaknesses. The majority of schools and teachers in the state system do their best to help their students achieve their potential. Unfortunately, however good a school and its teachers, this can't always lead to good results for all students.

'State school systems fail, in my opinion, when parents are prepared to go to a lot of trouble, including paying money, to send their children to other schools in preference to state schools.'

Exactly - there's a link. League tables and more 'choice' (which means more choice for the most privileged and less for the least) has led to struggling schools being abandoned by those who can do this while we all know the games being played by those who want to get into the over-subscribed (soaring property prices, adopt a faith, interviewing etc)

'In France, where I live, for many years private schools were only for those who weren't able to keep up in the excellent state system. That is unfortunately no longer the case.'
Again, exactly, in countries where there is little support for private schools and no faith schools the state schools offer a more equal education. Countries like Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries don't have the horrible conflict and deceit to fight for the best schools and surprise, surprise they have greater social mobility than in this country.

'I don't think private schools reinforce class divisions any more or less than other systems.'

No more than what other systems? Schools which select and charge fees are of course not open to those from every class. This increases social division. I can afford the fees, my neighbour can't.

'I don't agree that there isn't lots of experimentation in private schools. My experience is that they offer far more than state schools, as they should.'

This is a matter of opinion and varies from school to school. Most private schools pride themselves on their traditional approach. I know 4 or 6 private schools pretty well and they offer a traditional syllabus, with traditional uniform, traditional discipline, traditional teaching styles. Experimentation is not the word you would associate with most private schools but maybe you're thinking of that famous one which doesn't have a curriculum as such?

'I quite agree that selective private schools have an advantage when it comes to being the best. That doesn't negate the fact that they are and create a positive benchmark.'
For who? How does this help state schools and the kids who come out of them? This thread started off by pointing out that the majority of Oxbridge graduates come from private schools. State school kids often find it very hard to compete with private school kids for all kinds of reasons even though they may well be their intellectual rivals. As private school kids are segregated from state school kids they cannot provide a direct role model, intellectual challenge or whatever.

'I went to a grammar school between 1977 and 1979. It was full of working class children.'

What do you mean by 'full'? Which one was it? The majority of grammar school kids were and continue to be middle-class and relatively privileged. Fact. Grammar schools comprised less than half of all schools. Fact.

No, bc, I wouldn't want to abolish Oxford, British institutions and all those wonderful things we have in this country to render us like the tracts of social housing in outer suburbs of 1960s Budapest, thin stew, nothing in shops, everyone down on a dull same level that seems to be communism. I would like poor clever children to have more of a chance to compete for places at good universities but on their raw A level or exam results, not because of social engineering and positive discrimination because they're black or their parents didn't go to university or because their parents were clever enough to pick a particularly bad school such that they shine forth from its poor results with their own BBB when all about them get EEE.

I would prefer no state provision because I don't think the state is very good at most things and instead parents given the spending power by voucher to go where they choose.

There is experimentation, bc, although it's not the case in most schools. My second daughter's school North London C offered the IB last year which seemed to go very well.

Bedales has just annoubced I think that it's not going to be doing GCSEs except for a token 4 or 5. A summerhill you don't have to go to lessons. Steiner schools - whole different ethos again. Gordonstoun. "Small schools" movement. Catholic boarding taught by monks. Quite a few very very good special needs schools for dyslexia. Just masses of choice although most private schools are indeed what most parents want and that is just how market forces work.

My nearest primary school has great new buildings, a creative playground, fantastic, committed, young teachers, dynamic senior managers and I'm sure the school and its teachers do their best to help the students meet their potential. However, it is at the bottom of the league tables for my area. This is not because the school is failing it is because its students are in one of hte most deprived areas in the country, most of the students have English as a second language, many parents have very limited English and little education etc etc. These factors are totally beyond the control of the school and its teachers.

'No, bc, I wouldn't want to abolish Oxford, British institutions and all those wonderful things we have in this country to render us like the tracts of social housing in outer suburbs of 1960s Budapest, thin stew, nothing in shops, everyone down on a dull same level that seems to be communism.'

Blimy, I never said anything about abolishing Oxford or Communism. Revealing though I suppose predictable that you would treat any kind of challenge to the status quo in this kind of scare-mongering way.

'I would like poor clever children to have more of a chance to compete for places at good universities'

Yep, me too.

'but on their raw A level or exam results, not because of social engineering and positive discrimination because they're black or their parents didn't go to university or because their parents were clever enough to pick a particularly bad school such that they shine forth from its poor results with their own BBB when all about them get EEE.'

But Xenia, newsflash, this is what is happening. The poster earlier said that whether parents went to university is not taken into consideration when giving out places. Neither is a student's ethnicity taken into account when considering whether to offer a place. It is offensive and ridiculous to suggest that parents deliberately choose bad schools to give their kids an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE over private school kids.

If you don't think that people processing UCAS applications should take into account mitigating factors like whether a student comes from a poorly performing school in a deprived area when giving our university places and just accept that a student's A grades from a private school are purely a reflection of his or her natural ability then you are just arguing for a preservation of the status quo and more poor kids will not get into top universities. If that's your point of view then fine but please don't come on Mumsnet with your 'Oh those poor working class kids don't get a very good education and what a shame they won't go to Cambridge line'.

Xenia, it's interesting how you're so insistent on judging poor state school children purely on their intellectual ability as defined in your view by their A Level results and yet you talk about 'buying' your own kids the advantages of a private school education etc and acknowledge that they probably wouldn't have done as well in a state school.

'I did wonder when my oldest 3 were applying whether if they were doing badly I could "buy" an overseas place to get round the system and if not whether that would be anti competitive that someone from say the US could get in when a home student needed higher grades.'

So you think it's ok to use money to secure advantages in life - places at the best university, good jobs - but you don't think universities should take the disadvantages a child may have suffered at a poor state school with no parental support for example into consideration when offering places.

Yes, in a free market the rich can benefit their children. This ensure in evolutionary terms the fittest survive and thrive. It's how we were made and have developed for about a million years. I would like a fairer market where parents get vouchers they can use to buy school places in private schools.

And what do you mean by 'fittest'? Presumably richest? So the rich can 'buy' their kids the best education they can afford and the poor just have to make do. This has nothing to do with evolution Xenia and nothing to do with allowing children to maximise their potential and nothing to do with ensuring the brightest people in our society get opportunities to use their intelligence to benefit themselves and others.

Arguments using 'evolution' which is a purely biological term and talking about human nature are usually masking an individual's own selfishness or ways of preserving the status quo and resisting any challenges to it. Very little about the way we live our lives is 'natural' and if we acted purely according to what some believe to be 'human instinct' (and your view of 'natural' human behaviour is a very pessimistic one Xenia) then all manner of vile behaviour could be excused.

I don't understand your voucher system. Are you saying that every child would be entitled to private education regarldless of their parents' ability to pay? You can't say you want a fairer system and then say you think it's fine for the rich to be able to buy a good education for their kids. A good education system should allow equality of opportunity for all our kids. And so many of the inequalities which exist between schools are because of the disadvantages some kids have before they get to school and while they are at shool: poverty, lack of parental and community support, lack of access to resources which would help them learn, English as a second language etc etc. You can only fully tackle inequalities in schools when you tackle inequalities in society as a whole.

blackandwhitecat - it is the job of governments to help everyone in society to get opportunities to better themselves.

But the rich will always be able to buy things that the poor cannot afford, and that is a GOOD thing. A society where everyone was equal would be dull and deeply frustrating place (as the former communist countries of Eastern Europe demonstrated). Far better a society where there are lovely things to aspire to, a society that progresses because the fittest and brightest are highly educated and creative and invent new and brighter ways of living.

The issue that is hardest to decide upon is what we as a society find an acceptable range of wealth. Do we find it acceptable for the poorest members of society to be 100x poorer than the richest, 50x poorer than the richest, or 5x poorer than the richest? There is quite good evidence to show that societies where the range is contained are happier in the moment; and quite good evidence to show that societies that allow a greater range of wealth contribute more overall to human progress. No-one has the answer, and cultural factors play a huge role in determining what a society as whole judges acceptable.

If that's your and Xenia's view that's fine. I personally see access to good schools and a good healthcare as the right of everyone and necssary for social mobility. I do not believe that it's ok that some can buy these services and some cannot as though they were a nice car or whatever.

However, what pisses me right off is that Xenia started a thread in which she
a) bemoaned the fact that poor children who go to state comps are not getting a high percentage of A grades and therefore not accessing the benefits this involves like Oxbridge.
b) smugly repeated the fact that her kids go to private school and went on to get A grades.

but then went on to c) support the kinds of barriers and divisions which mean that a bright kid from a poor background can underachieve academically while she and those like her can use money to ensure that her kids and those like them continue to over-achieve academically.
and then said d) that some people being rich and getting As at A Level and going on to Oxbridge and some people not doing A levels at all and going nowhere regardless of the relative intelligence of the former or latter is all down to evolution and survival of the fittest anyway.

Yuk, yuk, yuk.

The voucher system that Xenia mentions has been very widely discussed in the media for a long time now.

The voucher system that Xenia mentions has been very widely discussed in the media for a long time now.

blackandwhitecat - why are schools and healthcare different from cars? as a society we could just as well choose to give all families a car from taxation revenue and leave them to buy schooling and healthcare.

There are quite good arguments to say that universal free access to healthcare is a bad thing as it stops people taking responsibility for their own health.

I agree B&W cat. Yuck indeed!

Xenia claims to have started a thread to bemoan the fact poor children with high IQs don't have the opportunities achieve their full potential.

She then goes on to gloat about how well her children have done because she used private education.

She then goes on to defend her position and say she wants all children to have the chance of a selective education so they can be judged on their merit.

She then goes on to say that it doesn't matter too much about natural IQ because rich people like her can buy their way into success.

Yuck!

I think Xenia wants to keep the poor in their place and her main gripe is with a poor state school kid being selected for Oxbridge with lower A level results than her own children.