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.

That doesn't sound too good, custardo. I prefer schools that aren't mixed.

Xenia and co I really wonder why that having chosen private education for your own children you feel the need to advertise this in quite such a smug fashion and spend so much of your time lambasting the state education system out of apparent concern (but actually just taking every opportuntiy to criticise a system about which you have opted out and really know very little and boast about your own and your children's privileged education).

It's no surprise that children who go to private school achieve better results.

1.) They usually select by ability
2.) They are better funded (by parents)
3.) Parents who choose private education by definition are supportive of their children's education and are wealthy enough to pay for it (when money, support and the level of parents' education are the most important indictors of a child's academic success).
4.) They can kick out any child who is disruptive or not making the grade (either by expulsion or by the quiet word in a parent's ear indicating that their child is not up to it).

If state schools were able to do the above then hey presto they would also achieve amazing results. In fact, state grammar schools which are able to select and usually have the children of supportive parents, do have amazing results.

Also, as posted many times previously, A LEvel results have no correlation to class of degree and a great deal of research suggests that private school students UNDER PERFORM at degree level.

What amazes me is the assumption that the success of private school children is entirely or even mostly down to the schools themselves and the teaching/ teachers and nothing to do with parental support, wealth, the impact of selection etc etc

Teachers in state schools are almost always better at TEACHING because when faced with mixed-ability students who are not selected, whose parents are not always supportive, who may be living in poverty, who may have special needs, and emotioanl and behavoiural difficulties, who are being taught in classes of 30+, who may be disruptive etc etc YOU BLOODY WELL HAVE TO BE.

You do not have to have a 1st from Cambridge to be a good teacher and many of the most gifted teachers I have ever seen are from comp schools themselves and work in some of the toughest inner city schools.

In answer to your questions about behaviour. Do you not listen to the news? Britain has one of the highest level of children living in poverty in Europe (obviously linked to behaviour and academic ahievement). The children of graduates aged 3 are, on average, 1 year ahead of those who aren't. According to UNICEF British children are also amongst the unhappiest in Europe. IT is suggested this may be because of the impact of the media on their development, pressure of exams, lack of time with their parents.

I regularly speak to parents who think it's normal and ok for their 3 year old kids to have televisions in their rooms and in their kitchens. Who think it's ok for very young children to watch programmes like Dr Who, who spend loads of money on satellite dishes and Broadband but don't have a book in the house, who have no idea how to say no to their children or worse who never ever praise their children and use insults and violence against them instead... If you want reasons for children's behaviour problems I could go on.

I think the reason discipline has worsened in schools is because it's worsened in society in general and in both cases (school and society) because bad behaviour is accepted.
My eldest dd's first two or three years at secondary school were ruined by the bad behaviour of four pupils in a class of thirty. Quite possibly individually they weren't that bad but as a group they fed off each other's bad behaviour and disrupted every lesson in which the teacher was unable to control them (sadly quite a lot). What was the school's answer to this? Did it exclude them? No - that would have made their figures for social exclusion or whatever look bad. Did they separate them? No. Did they discipline them in any meaningful way? Not that I could see. The school's answer was to bring in counsellors for the rest of the class. I mean WTF was that all about. Even dd at the age of 13 could see that that was ridiculous.
And this was in a school that was by no means a 'sink school' but rather a school in a reasonably affluent area of Edinburgh which had a reasonably good reputation.
As for the idea of bringing prison officers in as Head Teachers. Knowing some prison officers, I really hope that you're joking with that one Xenia. Unless of course you think that all state school children deserve is to be bullied and belittled.
I don't think that more parental choice is the answer or bussing poor but bright children to good schools. Call me naive but I think that every school should be given the resources to be a good school.
As for the school you describe, Custardo. That sounds appalling. There is absolutely no way I would be happy if any of my kids did that in class or were in a class where others were doing it. I'm genuinely shocked.

blackandwhitecat - I assume that where you refer to 'and co.' you are including me too. Where did I say that I used the private education system? I don't , I am amongst those to whom I refer that cannot afford private education and care about my children's education and behaviour and achievements. If I could afford the private sector I would like to think that I would still care about the state education sector all the same - but I am 'lambasting' an education system I am concerned will fail my children. I agree with what you say about private schools and have posted before on that subject similar arguments, I think that as teaching goes you have to be a far better teacher to teach in the state sector than the private sector as the resources , behaviour etc. are more challenging. I also agree that you need to be able to teach rather than just have a knowledge of a subject, you have to be able to communicate that knowledge in such a way that your audience can learn - that involves having many different strategies and not just a mre knowledge of a subject. You need also to have an understanding of the difficulties your students will have in understanding a particular topic. However, there still remains the case that many state schools are under performing and it is an important issue, and class divisive. We are gradually getting to a system where if you can afford it you can have a good education -university education doesn't come cheap after all. This is a concern.
With regard to behaviour I welcome your comments - my question wasn't a dumb one so much as a 'I have my own opinions but I'd be interested to hear others.' Sorry if you felt it needed a rather strong reply. I was really trying to initiate a discussion - BTW I don't want to turn this into a slanging match - just felt the need to justify myself.

bogwobbit I agree, what concerns me is the disparity between schools. There was a thread the other day about a 6yo being threatened with suspension for not coming in after playtime and your example of disrutive pupils not being dealt with.
Why is anti social behaviour accepted though, where has all the respect gone? When I was a child ( back to my Granny talk again!) I was afraid of adults - well perhaps not afraid - but I would never have dreamt of being rude to an adult ( with the exception of my parents naturally!) especially a stranger. Whereas now I see adults who are afraid of teenagers - I won't be intimidated by young people and it's amazing how if you stand up to them they will back down quite quickly. BTW I'm not forty yet - i sound like I'm in my 70's -

Balckandwhitecat, you misread me, and probably xenia as well. I'm not smug, but angry. I was failed gravely by state education, and I see that it's still largely awful.
I get very tired oif smug middle class people saying how find and dandy the state system is. They see a nice school, have a good experience themselves and don't give a shit about working class kids.

I know rather more about it that you seem to either appreciate or know yourself. But unlike the defenders of the failing system I don't base my view on just positive personal experience.
State education in Britain is terrible because we pay teachers badly, over manage and under support them, and coerce them into teaching subjects they've never studied.

But a critical reason for all this mess is poeple who based their opinion on the existence of some great teachers. The average is not the same.

Many private schools do select by ability, but not enough to explian the dismal relative performance of the state.
We can show this very very easily. If private schools didn't add more value then the average across the whole system would be the same.
But Britain is near the bottom of all the league tables except maths because (really) the British got the numbers wrong, so we're not in them at all.
The numbers imply that on average private schools in Britain don't do as well as German or French state schools, and as someone who looks at the output of UK education for a living, that seems to fit the facts well.

That makes the British state schools look even worse, since without private education we'd be even further behind.

Just seen your other thread bandw - I can see as a teacher you might have felt a little peeved at the apparent attitude - we're not having a go at you -honest- I agree that not all state teachers are poorly qualified to teach their subjects I wasn't saying that. If teachers were allowed to get on and teach and trusted to be the professionals they are - rather than being constantly drowned in paperwork and government iniatives - things would no doubt be better all round. Do you feel you don't have the power to discipline the children in your care? I think that some discipline issues arise as a result of children knowing that teacers hands are tied when it comes to behavioural matters. FWIW I agree that TV is responsible for a lot and am gobsmacked that children as young as 3 have TV's in their rooms. I find it terrifying to think what those children are exposed to on a daily basis.

(It wasn't me suggesting bringing in prison governors as heads. I would separate and separation and segregate. I'd try early on to cream off the brightest poorest children. I'd do more exclusion and i'd have special schools for disruptive pupils. I'd privatise all schools too and give parents vouchers. The state never does anything very well and never has.

What about bringing back secondary moderns so we can teach children to do things they are really interested in , which will give them skills to work rather than insisting that everyone should learn a number of generally useless subjects and get a degree in 'women's studies' or the like to make them 'employable' in today's society. Perhaps some of the disruptive children, given things they can enjoy and achieve in, might actually achieve some self esteem and behave better.

'I know rather more about it that you seem to either appreciate or know yourself.'

Right. Justify this to me please. I am a teacher currently in a 6th form college. We take about 1000 students a year 99% of whom have come from the state system. Since beginning my career I have taught about 100 different students each year. I have worked in about 10 schools in the state system. My partner is currently a senior teacher in a school for students with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties having worked in main stream schools for about 15 years as NQT through to head of department. My father is a professor in a local university and my mother is a teacher working in approx 20 different state schools. Does this count as experience? And what's your experience of state education in the last 10 years?

'But unlike the defenders of the failing system I don't base my view on just positive personal experience.'

How many assumptions you make. I went to a state comp in a fairly deprived area. I wouldn't call it a 'positve personal experience' but I managed to come out with mainly As at GCSE as did my sister and many of my peers. Went on to get As and Bs at A Level in a 6th form college, then a degree, MA and PGCE and 2 diplomas (does that make me qualified enough to teach English do you think?)

What I know is that a school can only be as good as its students. Don't your realize that almost all if not all 'failing' schools are 'failing' because their students have already been failed by their parents and society and yes arguably by government policies(which have given more choice to the middle classes and taken it away from the working classes).. They are all in deprived areas.

As I said earlier the children of graduates are up to a year ahead of those who aren't at aged 3 before they even get to school. You can't blame the schools only society.

Maybe people should be looking at Scotland and trying to find why their state system seems to better serve its children. Pupils score well and More advanced

Isn't the system better funded. they're moving to reduce class iszes even further in Scotland. If we could have the same per capita spending in England we might get the same results - or is it that English children are more badly behave too? I decided that I'm going to move to Scotland just as soon as I can, the health provision is better there too.

Well, as someone who has had bad (and not so bad) experiences of state school education in Scotland, I feel genuinely sorry for parents in England if our system is held up as a beacon to them.

BandW - don't schools count as part of society. i agree society is to blame but schools form part of our society - I'm not blaming schools exclusively but the government has to take some responsibilty to fund schools properly to provide a better society.

Firstly as a teacher I don' think I am badly paid I earn from my teaching just over £35K a year which while not amazing is better than most people in my town earn. I may be overworked but not badly paid.

I also don't teach subjects I am not qualified to teach , my first subject is related to my first degree and my second subject is directly related to my second degree and I am part way through a psychology degree which informs my classroom practice. I know of no one in my school who teaches a subject they are not qualified for, the only exception is the child development department until I came along.

I also don't speak from a naive point of view when it comes to schools, both dp and I come from very poor working class backgrounds and although dp never went to school I did and did very well.

I know that society is very different now but I am still closely involved with what people refer to as shit schools for working class kids as I feel that as someone from a working class backgound who has done well I am obligated to return to the system that did so well for me and help other kids like me achieve what I call their "golden future".

I am not naive there are faults ion my school and things I want to change, which is why I have ambitions to one day become a headteacher. But I do not see us as failing, with the kids we take we do very well. But i know that if our school population was more mixed they would do better instead our school has become a ghetto where bad behaviour and low attainment could veryeasily become the norm.

'State education in Britain is terrible because pay teachers badly, over manage and under support them, and coerce them into teaching subjects they've never studied.'

This is just rubbish. State education in Britain is not terrible. As I've said many kids have been set up to fail long before they've even got to school. Teachers are paid badly but you don't go into teaching for the money. I wouldn't work in the private system for a million a year and I've never met a colleague in the state system who would. Teachers in private schools rarely get paid any more anyway. And has been widely documented. Teachers are attracted to the private system because they can't hack it in the state system or because they share the same elitist values not because they're any better. I've never met any teacher coerced into teaching a subject they've never studied and I don't necessarily see this as a problem anyway. For example, I see no problem at all in a bilingual colleague of mine who usually teaches history teaching French (her first language) to year 7 students. I see no problem with a colleague with a MA in Forensic Egyptology teaching Biology to GCSE. And actually private schools are allowed to employ teachers who are totally unqualified and there are more of them than in the state system where they're not.

'Many private schools do select by ability, but not enough to explian the dismal relative performance of the state.'

Your arguments just do not hold up. There is a private school near where I work which selects at age 3, then aged 7 then aged 11. The parent of any student who is falling behind is told well before examination stage to find another child. The class sizes are 20 max. How can their results possibly compare with the closest state school with no selection, no faith, a majoirt of students with Enlish as a second language, a well above average of students with free school meals? Yet you would write off this school which actually does brilliantly with the students and resources it has as 'failing'

Your arguments about value added just don't even make sense.

'That makes the British state schools look even worse, since without private education we'd be even further behind.'
Or you could argue that other European countries which do not select and which do not have faith schools and which do not have a private system do better for precisely those reasons.

Oh and remember my points about Britain having the biggest number of children living in poverty? And the biggest number of unhappy children according to UNICEF don't you see the connection between these factors and academic achievement?
'

I do think that class sizes are a factor as is a alck of in class support, I have a year nine class of twenty and allof them have very por literacy skills, some of them cannot read as well as my fiv year old, they all have behavioural issues and most have child protection issues which imapct on the classroom. I have to teach this class on my own with no support and it is hard if not at times impossible, in that situation my school is failing its pupils.

Generalisation is dangerous and I know that all schools aren't as bad as the picture that is painted but as an overall view there is obviously still an issue. It's interesting what you say twinset that you say 'if our school population was more mixed they would do better instead our school has become a ghetto where bad behaviour and low attainment could veryeasily become the norm.' What do you think is causing that shift? Is it 'society ' or parenting specific to your area or generally a trend as a whole - not trying to be contentious, genuinely interested to know.

Find another school that should say not another child.

I know I would earn significantly less if I taught in our loca private schools.

LOL bandw -'The parent of any student who is falling behind is told well before examination stage to find another child.' I hope you mean school - or there is a serious problem with society especially that part of society that involve themselves with the private eduaction system

xposted you got there first !!

Private schools do pay less but there is a reason, teaching educable children who have been pre selected as such is easier.

Xenia we probably have more segregation and separation in this country than any other with regards to education. That's the problem. Middle-class parents can research the league tables and work the system by adopting a faith, moving house, or opting out of the state system leaving those schools in deprived areas to sink. In my area in the north schools are almost totally segregated by ethnicity also. This is one of the things cited as a major reason for the race riots recently and is partly to explain the rise in racial tension and feelings of frustration and anger in both Muslims and Christians in recnet years. This is something city academies have been designed to address but these will create theri own kind of segregation. Without league tables, faith schools and private education, I am certain that we would have a more qual system and better educationf or all.