40% of top grades to private pupils

[Judy1234]

That's astonishing - 70% of physics teachers in the private sector have a physics degree and 30% in state schools.

44% of A grades in French and German to private pupils.

40% of A grades in science and languages from private schools.

Yet they educate 7% of children.

" Private school pupils earn 40pc of top grades

By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph

Private school pupils win 40 per cent of all the A grades awarded in England in science and modern languages A-levels, figures have shown.

With the independent sector educating just 7 per cent of children, the statistics demonstrate hugely disproportionate achievement at the highest level in some subjects.

The dominance of private school pupils in two major areas of study helps to explain the difficulties that leading universities face when trying to increase their state schools intake. Admission tutors seeking the best-qualified candidates struggle to meet Government benchmarks for the proportion of undergraduates from comprehensives and poorer backgrounds and, in some departments, private school pupils vastly outnumber state school ones.
advertisement

Alan Smithers, the director of the centre for education and employment research at Buckingham University, said: "These results show the iniquity of the top universities having to account for themselves in terms of the backgrounds of their students.

"The reason for the concentration of good results in the core subjects of science and languages is that independent schools recognise that they open up future opportunities for pupils. Universities are being expected to compensate for the failure of some of our secondary schools to provide opportunities in these subjects. In the private sector, 80 per cent of physics teachers have a degree in physics. In the state sector, just 30 per cent of those teaching physics are qualified to that level in the subject."

The data, published in response to a parliamentary question, shows that 44 per cent of the A grades awarded in French and German last year went to pupils in private schools, as did 36 per cent in maths, 38 per cent in physics and 37 per cent in chemistry. On average, 40 per cent of A grades in sciences and modern languages across the country were gained by sixth formers from private schools.

Subjects perceived as harder to do well in remain a major focus in private schools. State schools, under the pressure of government league tables, are said increasingly to be encouraging pupils to go for better grades in "easier" subjects.

Sam Freedman, the head of research at the Independent Schools Council, said: "Independent schools don't allow children to take the easier options because they are not made available.

Fewer than half of schools in the sector offer media studies, for instance. We support traditional subject areas like the sciences and languages because they are a better grounding and because universities such as Oxford and Cambridge have made it clear that these are the kind of A-levels they want.

"Many universities would not have maths, science and French departments if it were not for the independent sector providing high quality candidates."

The achievement gap between the independent and state sectors is expected to increase further when the A* grade at A-level is introduced in 2008. Research carried out in 2003 by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, the exam board, found that independent school pupils were up to five times more likely to achieve marks at the upper end of the A grade at A-level than their state school counterparts.

But B&W everyone can, given equality of opportunity, get to be a doctor/lawyer etc. Not everyone will because they don't have the ability or they are not suited to it or they don't work hard enough.

Smallwhitecat if you read my post again you'll see that I am saying that this approach to Shakespeare is often taken in schools with students who find Shakespeare difficult. Streaming and setting and G & T programmes mean that some classes and students can take it further. I teach at 6th form and when kids come in already enthusiastic about Shakespeare then that's great for them and for me. What's wrong with watching a video of a Shakepeare production by the way? Teaching Shakespeare at Year 7 and beofre and even at Year 9 is a relatively new thing. It think it's great.

Quattro, you've obviously missed some of my previous points. Where you get in life is not determined by how clever you are. Aged 3 the children of non-graduates are a year behind the children of graduates. This is not because they are BORN less 'intelligent' is it? If there is such a gap between children before they hit school (because one group has less educated and possibly less supportive parents than the other not because their brains are any different) just think about how that gap widens over their life. It's the difference between Billy who grows up in a house with no books and unemployed parents and Stephanie who grows up with parents who are doctors, loads of books and encouragement. If they are born with the same 'intelligence' then they will very clearly not have the same opportunties. That is not my opinion it is statically proved. The biggest predictors of your academci and career success are what your parents do for a living not what your brain looks like.

B&W Didn't miss any of those posts - I agree with you to an extent about environment - but there is the sad fact that some people are more intelligent than others. That may be unpalatable but it is nonetheless true. There are some people who are prettier than others. There are some people who are more hardworking than others. We are not born equal, although I do firmly believe in equality of educational opportunity.

maybe I am younger than I think as we did two shakespeare plays in what is now year 7 and at a school that had only changed from secondary modern to comprehensive that year the sixth form were putting on the plays so the rest of the school had to learn about them as well

Quattro, you're right some people are born more intelligent than others but it's blissfully naive of you to think that intelligence gets you to the top of the tree. You only have to look at the Queen and her kids to see that that's not how things work in this country!

I appreciate that some of you don't mean to be offensive, patronising and snobby but when you argue that the status quo is somehow natural and assume that the people at the top are there because they deserve to be that's exactly what you're doing. Don't you realize that the same arguments that some of you are using to explain/ justify why working class kids don't get to university (i.e. some people are just less intelligent, some people are just lazy, some people just don't take advantage of the opportunities available to them) are precisely the arguments that were used to prevent free state education in the first place, and then to prevent it being extended to 16 and also to keep women out of education (people really believed and argued that it would drive us insane because we didn't have the mental capacity for it) and indeed to prevent the working classes and women from voting (they weren't intelligent enough. they didn't have the udnersanding. They'd use it irresponsibly).

Before you can have a rational argument about these issues you have to understand that there is a direct correlation between parental income and education and which school a child will go to, what grades she will achieve, whether she will stay on to do a levels and whether she will go on to university. If you examine the numbers of those receiving free school meals and thos with special educational needs you will see that faith schools have significantly less proportionately than non-faith schools while state gramamr schools are almost entirle y made up of middle class kids. Yes, it is possible for a child with drug-abusing, illiterate parents to make good (in theory) but in practice this rarely happens for obvious reasons.

local authorities are making it harder for poorer kids to go to faith schools outside london as they are reducing the bus services covering the greater distance to a faith school which may explain why there are less kids on free dinners at faith schools.

DD's faith school has a much higher proportion of children on free meals than the nearby community comp

forgot to add they are in a london borough

'If a child can read they are capable of studying the whole text and should be given that opportunity.'

They are. However, you might find that reading the whole of Richard 3 with a group of Yr 9 students who have English as a second language or problems with literacy or who never read at home a little bit challenging. In such a position a teacher might choose to show the video or take students to a production (and THERE's ABOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS SINCE PLAYS ARE MEANT TO BE PERFORMED AND NOT READ) and focus on particular scenes, extracts, aspects of language and character. It's called good teaching. If you had a more able group you may choose to take a different approach which may involve reading the whole text.

'They should not be able to pass an exam in English Literature without having done so.'

I think you'll find that you do have to study a Shakespeare text for SATS at Yr 9 and you have to study a Shakespeare text as well as a pre 19thc novel and 20th century drama and poetry amongst other things for GCSE.

But hey what do I know. I've only been teaching Shakespeare for 10 years to Yr 7 and above and, oh, I was recently commissioned by Collins to write part of a SATS pack on one of the Shakespeare texts. If your kid is studying for SATS their teacher may well be using resources created by me.

'As for class hatred the resentment you feel at the fact middle class parents do everything in their power to help their kids amply demonstrates it.'

This is absolutely ludicrous and you have nothing to support it. I am a middle class parent myself as were my parents and most of my friends.

What are you talking about? How on earth did the Queen get into this conversation?

Look, academic success is a compound of many factors. Academic success has little to do with social and commercial success outside academe, as someone else has said.

But concentrating on academic success for the moment - it is a compound of brains, hard work, home environment and schooling.

It is not smug or snobbish to say that some people are more intelligent/prettier/harder working than others.

It is manifestly unfair that there is such a huge gap between state and private schools. It would be great if we could make state schools better. Unfortunately this is (a) bloody difficult and this is the question of the OP that we haven't even begun to address and (b) will not and cannot ensure equality of outcome.

You are confusing equality of educational opportunity with equality of outcome. They are not the same thing.

I'm saying that intelligence is not what gets you into university. It's not what makes you academcially successful. It's not what gets you into the best schools. It's not what gets you the best jobs.

What gets you these things is the social and economic position of your parents.

I used the Queen as an example because clearly her kids and their kids have no intelligence but still have more money, power and access to the best education. Little Billy on the council estate from across the road may have been born more intelligent than Einstein but at aged 3 he already appears behind my kids because his parents never speak to him and have never told him about letters, colours and shapes. He will go to his nearest school because his parents don't even know league tables exist and wouldn't understand them if they did(I have trouble working them out although I'm a teacher) where he may lag behind his peers who may or may not have had a better start in life. He can make no sense of all these books the teacher puts in front of him (he hasn't ever seen one before) and doesn't understand why he has to sit and listen all day. He starts to be disruptive to get the attention he can't get from being good and doing well and so on ...

Yes Billy CAN become a doctor or a lawyer or whatever but he won't will he? Because however good a school or a teacher, it is a rare, rare child who can overcome the sorts of obstacles in Billy's way.

and so rare that when it does happen you see the kids in the newspapers in late august when the results are out

And that's nothing to do with his lack of ability or the intelligence he was born with and everything to do with the lack of parental support, money and so on.

People who go to university or get into the best schools are not any better or more intelligent than those who don't they have just had in the vast majority of cases more advantages (namely middle class aspirational parents).

Look you seem to be going around in circles, and I am not sure that you actually disagree with anything I have said.

The question in the OP was really about how to improve state schools.

Discuss. Don't issue a diatribe about how it's all so dreadfully unfair that some people are born into poverty and others into wealth. What's the point? No-one would disagree that it's bad luck for children to be born into poverty. The question was about how to help them to achieve academically.

Grades are what get you into university. And A level grades are a very blunt instrument when used to measure intelligence.

Actually, the OP, was about the gap between the resources and results of private schools and state schools. The implication as often by any thread begun by DC or Xenia is how can our terrible state schools fail children so badly when look how well private schools are doing. And my initial argument (before the whole Shakespeare, university, baked beans digression) was that the gap between the 2 is hardly surprising given the different backgrounds of private school and state school kids and that we shouldn't criticise state schools or teachers when they (by and large) do their best with what they've got under difficult circumstnaces and yet (to resurrect DC's awful metaphor) whereas a surgeon does his best for a very sick patient who then dies or does not recover or even gets just a littel bit better is commended a teacher or school does not.

Here's a radical thought for you B&W.

State schools could be better. Really they could. The reason they get outperformed by the private schools is not SOLELY to do with the social background of the parents.

So what, practically, can we do to improve state schools?

Quattro, I'm trying so hard to let that go and move on really I am but:

'State schools could be better. Really they could.'

Agreed. There is not organisation or individual that you couldn't say that about.

'The reason they get outperformed by the private schools is not SOLELY to do with the social background of the parents.'

No, it's to do with the fact that they select, kick out kids who underperform or cause trouble, have more money and smaller class sizes.

State schools cannot and should not select and kick out kids (who would only go to other state schools). They should have more money and they should have smaller class sizes.

Given the same resources, powers (of selection and to kick out) and levels of support ANY school could perform brilliantly. But state schools are there for ALL children and private schools are there mainly for the privileged elite.

If you really want to know what could be done to improve state schools I could tell you. In fact, I have already said many times on this thread that the first thing we need to do is get rid of league tables, faith schools and so on. But if you want smaller suggestions I have lots.

A significant proportion (I believe the majority) of private schools DO NOT SELECT. Let's nip that one in the bud.

Behaviour issues must be able to be managed better. You have said nothing about that.

Smaller class sizes sounds okay to me.

What about better teachers? More teacher assessment? Benchmarking their results? Raising the quality standards? Paying them lots more too, of course, as a quid pro quo.

What about ensuring consistency of teaching? The selective gramnar school close to me (where parents have bunfights to get in) actually made their A level maths group have 9 (Yes NINE) separate teachers in a year.

What about raising the schools' expectations of their children? Giving bright children a chance to read Shakespeare? Still shocked about the earlier posts tbh.

What about offering decent music tuition and sporting activities to promote engagement?

It seems to me that you haven't once looked at or thought about what really needs to happen to improve state schools. I find that worrying.