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

I think you're right hotcoffee. And the other thing that I can't stand is the automatic assumption that schools and teachers are to blame for the poor results and low aspirations of poor kids and conversely the assumption that rich kids and rich kids' schools are automatically vastly superior. Together with the patronising, 'What a shame it is. How terrible that these awful state schools exist and some people have to go to them' and ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to acknowledge any responsibility for this (either causal for avoiding these schools so that they sink, or for reinforcing the barriers and supporing elitism and by abdicating any responsibility for improving the state of things). I wish people would realize that schools and their pupils are just part of wider society for which we are ALL responsible.

We can't all go to Oxford etc, didn't Brave New World mention having to have the alphas and the epsilons. First class honours doesn't make a more kind and caring nurse or a safe and careful bus driver. Perhaps it is time we valued these people and not just in monetary terms. I would far prefer DC's to go into this type of work than banking or publishing trash magazines

I don't really know what XENIA has got to boast about really

She says her children didn't get AA s at A level

She says they haven't gone to OXBRIDGE

Does it really matter anyway?

She just likes boasting and IMHO that is nothing to shout about, is it?

People are born unequal in terms of looks, IQ, disability, never mind the family they're born into. If they get the chance of a good education they do better. If we think too many go to university then we should be cutting back not expanding places I suppose.

I don't really gloat over my children. I want them to be balanced happy people in work they enjoy. I was pleased the eldest got a job and been thinking about how you get from that point of a new born baby to getting a job and who gets what depending on what background, IQ etc.

I don't think comprehensives have served well clever poor children and I think grammar schools did better for them. But you may think that's a price worth paying if the non grammar school children do better in comps than secondary moderns

I'd rather hoped decent society had moved beyond the survival of the fittest. Otherwise we should be still be putting our disabled children and eldery folk out on hillsides to die.

I live in Nigeria where I see the consequences of the survival of the fittest every single day and it ain't pretty. Today's 'viewing' was an 8-to-10yo disabled boy crawling, yes, crawling along the road in between four lanes of traffic in order to beg a meal.

And being chauffered by him were corrupt politicians and businessmen who choose not to see what is in front of their very eyes because they are the fittest, who've survived the system and don't give a f*ck about those who fall by the wayside.

chauffered past

Xenia, I think you're right that the poor, clever children who went to grammar schools benefited from them. But this was only a handful of kids relative to the middle-class kids who benefited and continue to benefit from the free selective education offered by state grammar schools. There is no comparison between the number of poor kids who benefited from grammar schools and the number of kids who are offered high quality free education from comprehensive schools. In many cases they are not in a position to benefit fully from schooling because of the disadvantages they suffer from deprivation,lack of parental or community support, English as a second language etc and these are issues which must be tackled if we are to improve the chances of working class kids. At lease the comprehensive system whatever its faults (and I would argue that the principle continues to be a good one and the main problem is that there has never been a fully comprehensive system as faith schools, grammar schools, private schools etc have continued to exist and league tables have allowed MORE CHOICE to the middle-classes who we know are in a position to buy property, research, adopt a faith, whatever into the best schools while LESS CHOICE is available to poor parents who don't have these advantages) allows all our children to access the same curriculum, exams and as far as it is able to chances of a good education in so far as they are able to access these.

Nobody here as far as I am aware have argued too many people are going to university. I say the opposite.

The evolution/ survival of the fittest argument is at best irrelevant and at worst insidious in Western society. Is John Prescott at example of survival of the fittest? And David Blunkett? and Stephen Hawking? This is one of the arguments used to support eugenics and Nazism. I agree with Suedenim. I think it's vile. And you might want to remind yourself that children should not suffer because of their parents' poverty, ignorance or whatever any more than they should suffer because of their own race, disability or whatever. The kind of elitism and class barriers that you support and your argument that universities should not take into account a student's relative privileges and disadvantages when offering places are self-evidently major barriers to social mobility. As I have said I find it offensive that you started this thread to appear to feel sorry for working class kids who have little chance of progressing in society and then seem to be arguing against anything which would help them progress and refusing to acknowledge any kind of responsibility in this whole set up.

If too many children go on to University, degrees get devalued. Then you have more and more people taking higher degrees in order to differentiate themselves. If 100% of school leavers went on to University, our best students would need to be in education until they are 30 or so. No economy can support this.

We need as a society to ensure that the majority of people receive a decent education that allows them to join the productive economy upon leaving school, albeit with some vocational training.

University-type academic studies are a waste of time for the vast majority. In France, Germany and Italy university has become horribly devalued because of almost universal take-up by school leavers who have passed a (very easy) school leaving certificate. This is a huge drain on the economy as a whole and a waste of precious years for the students concerned who have to take menial jobs upon graduation.

It may be vile but it's how this race developed and continues to develops. It's why we often miscarry disabled children naturally, why fatter people die early of heart attacks etc etc. Where there is merit to the group in looking after the old and sick people do and always have done.

Many many private schools are comprehensive in terms of IQ but usually parents of brighter children don't choose those so I suppose they become non comprehensive in IQ terms. I just have found I enjoy debates with clever people and classrooms with others who are like that and mixing them all in doesn't seem to do either the brighter or the very slow children much good. Of course you can just separate them for particular subjects I suppose.

I agree with Xenia, human beings aren't always very nice and that's fine as long as we are truthful about that.

It's not very nice either to hold those who are clever, have worked hard and made sacrifices back in order not to hurt the feelings of those who have fewer advantages in life.

"It's not very nice either to hold those who are clever, have worked hard and made sacrifices back in order not to hurt the feelings of those who have fewer advantages in life."

Equally you could argue:

It's not very nice either to hold those who are clever, have worked hard and made sacrifices back in order not to hurt the feelings of those who have more advantages in life.

Anna, by your earlier post you again simply reveal a huge difference in our attitudes and values.

'If too many children go on to University, degrees get devalued.'

But the value YOU are talking about is purely financial. I believe a university education and the experience of being at university is intrinsically valuable and should not be restricted to a privileged minority.

'Then you have more and more people taking higher degrees in order to differentiate themselves.'

Yes, and? Most careers require further training anyway. I have a degree, a Masters and a PGCE. These have allowed to me to be a good teacher and to have a great time learning.

'If 100% of school leavers went on to University, our best students would need to be in education until they are 30 or so. No economy can support this.'

Again, exaggeration and scare-mongering reveal a lot about you and your attitudes. Nobody is talking about everyone going to university. We actually have one of the lowest rates of students carrying on to HE in this country compared to the US and the rest of Europe. And the earliest school leaving age. I don't notice the American economy collapsing under the weight of its 50% of students going on to HE. Funny that.

Being against the expansion of HE is very often about resisting threats to elitism and the privileged minority. This is the attitude which Xenia has revealed on this thread and on others. Which brings us right back to the beginning.

I should say as well that as a teacher in a 6th form college I see 100s of students achieving A grades and going off to universities including Oxbridge every year. The vast majority of our students have come through the comprehensive system in a very deprived area and are the 1st generation to go to university. I also see students who don't make it to the end of their course, under-achieve or don't make it to college at all. More later

I nowhere wrote that the value of university education to the student was financial and it is absolutely not what I believe. I am a great believer in education for its own sake.

In France, Germany and Italy, many university courses are worthless. The experience of university (true university) is too expensive to give to the masses, so they get second or third rate dumbed down versions.

This is less true in the US where universities are far better endowed than in Europe (and the whole economy works on a different basis anyway).

But Anna your implication that the more people who go to university means the less valuable that university education is certainly gives the impression that you feel that a degree is a commodity than can be used to buy into a better career. You would not be alone in having that attitude but it's not mine. There is no reason why the quality of the education they receive should be diluted because more people are accessing it. You might want to remember that all the arguments you are using against expansion of HE were amongst those used to try to prevent the dirty masses getting a SCHOOL education a century ago. I always find it depressing when those who have benefited from a univerity edcuation etc feel that they were somehow special enough to deserve it but others don't.

I don't think your arguments about HE in other countries stand up either. If the country can afford to spend billions on a war in Iraq then we can afford to spend more on HE.

And as I was saying earlier, although I have seen many 100s of students who have succeeded in the comprehensive system I have also seen those who haven't including those children my dp teaches in a school for kids with severe EBD who can't cope in mainstream education. BUT these students have failed their exams/ dropped out whatever IN SPITE of every effort given to them by their schools/ colleges etc. We offer 1-1 support, mentoring etc etc for students who are struggling with their courses for any reason. BUT there are always going to be some kids who don't have the support they need to carry on. It's a very strong child who can overcome some of the difficulties tht I have seen and carry on to th point of getting into HE BUT at least under the comprehensive system this is possible. Under grammar schools it wouldn't have even been possible for the vast majority of our children.

It troubles me that so many girls (it's usually women) get their degree and French and then work as a typist, something they could really have started doing at 16, or even 14. I suppose if they are happy to take on the student debt and want those 3 years at university (mine have had loads of fun, it's been great for them) that's your choice in a free market but it does mean that those jobs that just wanted to know you had your typing certificate and English CSE/GCSE now will pick from graduates for the personal assistant type jobs.

What I hope we can avoid is universities moving entirely to the private sector because at least at the moment university is a place where state and private school pupils do mix in a way they might not otherwise have done without going there and it's also a good half way house in terms of growing up, leaving home, being self sufficient.

What I am getting at is that many assume that students fail because the schools fail them when that is absolutely not hte case. I have never really seen a school letting down its kids or a teacher doing this eithe (though every teacher makes mistakes) and it's interesting that all the schools in special measures are those in deprived catchemnts reinforcing that it's not the schools themselves that are the problem but the kids or rather their lack of support etc.

In fact in my 6th form we get a lot of students from the private grammar school down the road who choose not to stay on or are kicked out at aged 16. One student I currently teach who came from their is resitting his GCSE. HE got an E at his private shool but it heading towards a B grade with me. Largely because his psychological problmes with exams have gone undiagnosed. So much for a bright student fulfilling his potential at private school!! And he's not the only one. By and large the school does a good job and the kids achieve excellent results but we often have to pick up the pieces (not necessariyl academic but emotional) and help student learn independence which they haven't at the school.

Oh, and again what annoys me is the way Xenia and co can make so many assumptions about the state sector failing the kids without really seeming to know anything about state education since they've opted out.

I'm sure that your example of the typist would be thrilled that you're concerned about her Xenia. Your post reinforces my point. It's all right for your kids to go to university and have a great time (and of course they've had every help to get there including private education) but not for x down the road. So what if she CHOOSES to become a typist. She now also has other options open to her if she CHOOSES those. If she hadn't gone to university her choices would be limited as would her life expereince.

I thought b&w I was really saying the potential typist can go to university if she likes and wants the student debt. I'm not against that at all. I also don't think most state schools fail their pupils. I believe over all most private schools do a very good job or I wouldn't have chosen them, I'd have bought a yacht and some nicer clothes instead etc.

Oh I love these sort of threads!

My kids go to a state grammar and lots of the children there get As and Bs at A level, but they didn't appear in the table, which seemed odd to me as it is about 12th in other league tables for A levels - above Eton and Cheltenham Ladies College. I know some of the girls from last year didn't want to go to Oxbridge, mainly because of the "sort of odd people that go there"!! Their words not mine. Their parents probably want them to go because it adds to their ability to show off about their offspring, but the offspring aren't really interested.

Bath, Durham, Birmingham, Leeds, Warwick (although they seem to specialise in overseas students with lots of money) were much more in favour than Oxford and Cambridge. Durham in particular seemed very popular, may be because the kids want to get as far away from their parents as possible. (I don't live in the North of England!)

My experience too Figroll. And a point I forgot to make earlier. This whole discussion assumes that everyone wants to go to Oxbridge and that Oxbridge is wonderful when in fact many of my students see the courses they offer as stuffy and boring and wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. Also, most of my students stay close to home (most at home) for financial or cultural reasons. Xenia when you talk about private school and state school kids mixing at university you would do well to remember that at the majority of universities private school kids are a minority. I didn't knowingly meet any private school kids at my university (sussex). And while OXbridge indisputably opens doors for people and allows its graduates to access careers etc they otherwise wouldn't (though this is an unfari advantage and has nothing to do with ability being recognized and rewarded) OX and Cambridge are relatively small universities. They educate a minority. Our leading business people, scientists, surgeons, teachers etc can and do come from every other universtiy too including the new universities and universities abroad.

I do agree with the idea (from another thread) that conditioning plays a vital role. I bet 100 per cent that Xenia is from a middle class background with professional parents. From day one children learn their behaviour with parents as role models. For working class people it is so hard to 'go further'. I said before that I got 4 A-grade A-levels but didn't get into the top 3 universities, I suspect subconsciously the thought of it terrified me. It's not who I am. Even at an excellent university studying languages I felt like an alien. SO really the government should be encouraging clever poor kids, I do think selective schools are a good idea. One of my DS's is academic and really bright and I feel he is not going to have great opportunities at our comps. The other DS I think will do better in the local schools because of his personality- they are only young yet though.

I really want to stay at home with my children for the first 3 years of their lives, I don't know if it is best for them but it's best for me. I never had a 'career' before but I believe if I use half a brain and a bit of determination I'll be able to do something. Still won't be able to afford private education though- and I would choose it if we could afford. Also I have 3 boys not 3 girls so really I should be starting a whole new gender debate. A whole can of worms has been opened in my brain now!

I also think that many "working class" children do not even consider Oxbridge as a possibility - they perhaps feel that they are too humble! I know that my eldest dd certainly didn't consider herself worthy - I put her right on that score - but she too is all for Durham. It is a really nice town and has a shoe shop to die for (her words).

Sorry about the use of the term Working Class - I believe that anyone who needs to work for a living is working class and this usually encompasses a large proportion of our population - but I am sure you know what I am trying to say.

None of my oldest tried Oxbridge. Durham was always supposed to be next after Oxbridge and if you're applying for jobs where some usually man over 50 of a certain type is in charge then you might find it helps. People have very rigid views on the "right" university in some career paths even if XYZ ex polytechnic does the best research in the country on slender grasses or whatever so if you're going to play the game and go for those jobs and fit into those prejudices then it pays to pick the universities those people prefer.

Whereas if you don't know that Bath is way down than say Durham because your children aren't at a school which tells them that then they lose out.

I am just ordinary middle class and my parents went to state schools. People move up and down and always have in the UK I think.

Perhaps do we think the cheapest and easiest way to help your children is to buy them elocution lessons and change their accent and dress even?

my son goes to a state school and have been told he is oxbridge 'material' in year 10 !! {so there emotion}