Innocent poll: Would you willingly send your DC to a so called poor school for the sake of.....

[fireflytoo]

...improving the standards of that school? There are often threads about all the issues revolving around so called good or bad schools. Many factors are blamed; class sizes, teacher child ratios, the middle class influence, sociological environments etc.

What I would like to know is whether anyone (especially anyone who gets cross at parents who move to good school areas or who pay for tutors etc) would willingly send their DC to a school where they know the DC would not nessecarily (sp?) get the best education....but where the school would benefit from having them there. (Presuming these said DC have supportive parents and the DC are quite capable of doing well.)

Hope I am not stepping on any toes here... I am genuinely interested in this question though.

Well she did-you are not going to pay for a poor school! She didn't mean that you HAD to pay to get a good school.

Oh get real Ormy.

I was replying to mrsrufallo wit last post.

OK.

I thought they were too Ormi-or at least should be

I know they are. But I guess it's one of those rules that everyone ignores.

Oh, but they are banned.

And we get parents sending the kid in with them.

Kids are not allowed to throw food at each other in the school either, but that didn't stop one kid spending 5 minute, 5 frigging minutes explianing why he shouldn't clear up the mess that I had seen him make.

If you've not spent time in an average state school in the last few years you simply wouldn't belive the nonsense that we have to sort out on a day to day basis.

Nice, sensible parent on MN are often horrified that schools are so prescriptive over rules, 'Why' they ask themselves, 'Can my little Cassandra not have her mobile in school? she wouldn't use it in class.'

and I thne have to spend my entire breaktime getting Cassandra to hand over the mobile which she was using to text her mates in the lesson.

Oooh I so don't want to be one of those parents mb!!! I've been ever so good at primary. I promise never ever to let my DS have his mobile. Honest

Well yes but they all smuggle them in. And the poor parents get three lies in the morning

1. Yes I have brushed my teeth
2. Yes I have got a piece of fruit as a snack
3. No my mobile and IPOD is at home safely

And you are so busy dealing with the first lie and rooting through her pockets to remove the illicit chocolate that you kind of miss the third IPOD and mobile ...

Until said dopey child rings you up on it ...

The real conversationm went like this

'i was turing it off'

You shouldn't have to have it in school

'I have to, my Nan is ill'

I'll take you to welfare and you can phone from there to see how she is

'Its OK, she is better now'

You shouldn't have been texting in class

'I was turning it off'

But I saw you with it three times

'I was just looking at it'

You shouldn't have it in school

'That is such a lame rule, I don't care!'

and so on, and so on, until in the end we had 4 members of staff trying to get the blasted kid to do as he was asked!

my 15 minute break totaly taken up by this nonsense

In our school, they have to be switched off during the day. They are not banned, however, and I don't think many parents would support a ban - they are just too useful to parents, especially when their little darlings had complex after-school arrangements.

If I catch someone with a phone, I confiscate it and their parents have to pick it up from the school office at the end of the week. I've never had anyone use a phone in or between lessons. The only time I confiscate phones is on my lunchtime duty, and then it's not very many - one ever 3 weeks or so.

I know of someone who has just transferred their son from a so called 'challenging' school to a school with a top reputation. He is desperately unhappy and feels that his work and attitudes are not valued in the new school. His mother feels that he would have received a better education at the challenging school, because his abilities are simply taken for granted at his new school.

You might also want to consider what will happen come University time. Remember that, for many reasons, a number of Universities now actively focus elements of their intakes on the more challenging comprehensives, but will turn down those with higher grades from 'better' schools.

Policywonk - "do you really think that social bias plays no part in Oxbridge/Russell Group entrance? That admissions processes are all about intellect, and no other considerations (however unconscious) come into play?

5candles and I are debating the reasons behind the under-representation of state school pupils at Oxbridge. The Sutton Trust are of the opinion (and their various bits of research on this topic are linked below) that state school teachers show "alarming misconceptions about Oxbridge". The fact that your brother got in and you got turned down is surely supportive of the fact that social bias is not a factor - or is he a different social class to you?

"Also, fivecandles point about Oxbridge being a tiny and ultimately irrelevant part of the system for most people is impeccable, surely?" - Well of course it's a tiny percentage that get there but it would be nice if that tiny percentage were more representative of the population as a whole rather than the upper upper sixth of Westminster School.

btw - I think the Oxbridge admissions tutors made a mistake with you.

I agree swedes, that it would be nice if Oxford and Cambridge were more representative. Likewise MPs, judges and so on. What I would like even more though is a non-hierarchical university system so that tax payers money is not going to fund institutions (like Oxbrige but also faith schools and grammar schools) which actively exclude the vast majority. As I've said there may be good reasons why particular universities may specialise in particular courses and areas of research but there is no good reason why so much funding, expertise and talent (students) should queue up for 2 universities which are only ever going to educate a privileged elite (even if a few more of them might come from state schools eventually).

And, as MB said earlier, getting Oxbridge to be 'more representative' is not number 1 on my educational wishlist. Tackling behaviour, small class sizes etc etc could help the progress of all students.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I was at Cambridge as a foreign, state-school educated undergraduate, and I cannot honestly say that I detected any other bias than cleverness and achievement. My best friend at university is the daughter of a dinner lady and a small scale plant salesman, and was state educated a very rough comp.

I know of several instances of very low A level offers to interesting people with a clear life plan but low academic success (3 Es in one case) who would greatly benefit and would ultimately contribute back to society (let us not forget that a fair few Oxbridge graduates become teachers/ social workers/ doctors/ vicars/ rabbis, not just investment bankers and politicians) and most did not disappoint their admissions tutors.

If we want to retain a world class tertiary education system, the way to achieve is not to force everyone into the same level of mediocrity by enforcing a representative intake of lower-achieving people, but to encourage those who are able to achieve their full potential and to dare to achieve. This, in my opinion, is not happening in a great many state schools, either through fear or ignorance of what to expect, and is probably the more salient element in the apparently low proportion of state school educated Oxbridge undergraduates.

Or perhaps you've just not read a word I've written duchesse.

And Oxford and Cambridge don't do the 3 offers any more. Only 4 + As, in fact, since they got rid of exams.

Back off to encourage some more mediocrity in my state educated students by marking various A grade essays (including one written by a student who has just gained full marks in an A2 module and is going to Cambridge).

3 E offers that should say. Long gone.

Thanks Swedes. BTW, my brother went to St Paul's in Hamersmith and I went to the local comp and FE college, so not so clear-cut on that score.

Since you mention full marks several times, 5candles, can we assume 5 different students, or the same one over and over again?

I did the Oxford entrance exam and passed. My offer was 2 Es, which was the norm at the time.

With grade inflation 4 A grades now = 3 E grades back then.

Excuse me for being proud of my student's success ScienceTeacher. I just like to point out to those smug, patronising people who assume that state schools and teachers spend all their time suppressing genius and telling students not to apply to Oxbridge that actually the vast majority of teachers and the vast majority of state schools do their best for our students (whatever their ability) and encourage and achieve all sorts of success. Plus it's taken me all afternoon to mark these bloody essays some of which are nearer 5000 words than 3.

I also have to repeat just one more time that I really find it hard to see why people find it surprising that people with a private school education are overrepresented at Oxbridge as they are in Parliament and so on. They are PRIVILEGED before they ever set foot in the classroom. They are SELECTED. They have parents who are SUPPORTIVE and VALUE EDUCATION and have MONEY. The schools can kick out students who are not making the grade or are disruptive.

Most state schools aren't allowed to select and the ones that are (grammar schools, then faith schools) are more successful also surprise, surprise.

LOLOL

and I'm a comprehensive school gal.