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.

Swedes, how can you be so naive?????

Firstly, as UQD has been at pains to point out,

'The balance of successful Oxbridge entrants (approx 54-46 in favour of state school) is, each year, more or less exactly in proportion to the proportion of applicants.'

(What's your source for this BTW, UQD?)

Now, if you knew nothing about state schools, you could assume that the reason for this is that the state schools are somehow holding back all the bright kids. But this would be wrong. There are 2 obvious reasons why this is wrong:

1.) There's not much point in students who do not have a mainly A grade profile applying to Oxbridge and there are statistics which clearly show that as well as having proportionately more successful applicants to Oxbridge (relative to numbers in private vs state education) private schools also have the lions share of A grade students.

2.) State schools and colleges (as any school or college) are desperate to get students into Oxbridge. Of course they are. Nothing looks better. They get the press in, they get the students to come back and visit etc etc. Many (most) also have dedicated Oxbridge programmes. My college does. We get funding for it.

So, some of the likely reasons why students do not apply to Oxbridge in as great a number as students from private schools are:

1.) There are less students who are ABLE to apply in that there are proportionately less students who have an A grade profile (NO, do not assume this is the fault of the schools. This is because so many of the A grade potential students have been creamed off by the private schools. students at private schools have already been selected by ability, by parents ability to pay, by parental support etc. If state schools only taught students who'd been selected in this way I think you'd find their number of A grades and number of Oxbridge applicants would also soar).

2.) Amazingly, some bright students choose not to apply to Oxbridge now this could be because they can't afford to, because they don't want to leave home for financial, cultural or other reasons, it could be because they find Oxbridge courses too traditional and inflexible , it could be because they are attracted by a particular course or a particular university elsewhere. I have taught students who fall into all of these categories. For example, some Asian students who had assumed that they would stay at their parents' house until they could afford to buy outright their own house. And another student who was a gifted musician and had a scholarship sort of thing with a particular university which had links to an opera group or somehting.

5candles - my source is my friend mentioned above.

Can we be clear:

It is wrong to assume that state schools and colleges are failing, discouraging or misadvising their students (of course, there will be exceptions to this as there will be in every school in every sector).

It is wrong to assume that students who choose not to apply to Oxbridge (when given every opportunity and appropriately advised) are misguided etc etc. We are talking about bright students here and it is patronising to assume that they are not capable of making up their own minds about which course and university is best for them. Although, as I've said, giving the same number of bursaries to EVERY university to use might help to spread the talent around various universities and allow students from deprived backgrounds (who do not have parental support) to move further affield when it comes to univerisy.

I have seen that figure UQD quotes, it's been in recent official reports.

Here's the link which says 'nearly half of all private school pupils' A-level entries this year were awarded A grades, figures from the Independent Schools Council indicate.' BTW
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5284792.stm

Now, don't make the mistake of assuming that if you go to private school you're more likely to get an A grade because you've gone to the private school. If you are in a position to go to a private school by which I mean you're in a position to pass the exam, have parents who support your education and are able and choose to pay for it etc etc then I'd say there's a 50% chance of you getting an A grade anywhere you go because you are already amongst a privileged minority.

In general I agree with your last post, 5Candles. There are lots of good reasons why not all bright students want to go to Oxbridge. However, I have also taught a lot of students (I teach a postgrad course in a non-Oxbridge uni) who got a first in their first degree (which could have been anywhere from former poly to Russell Group) and went on to get a distinction in their Masters, who didn't apply to Oxbridge because they thought they weren't bright enough.
Now, some of those students will have been late developers, but for a lot of them, it really was about confidence or thinking (wrongly) that they wouldn't fit in. Oxbridge is perceived by many as more unattainable than it actually is.

(by 'last post' I meant your 13.30 one)

Fivecandles - Sutton Trust findings about state schools and oxbridge admissionshere - but clearly your own findings are empirical

I think that all the talk of Oxbridge is a bit misleading, only a very small percentage of the population are suited whatever their school. Even if my DSs had the best education that money can buy, I still don't think that they would be suited to Oxbridge. The youngest is very art orientated so will be looking for a career in graphics, the middle one is dyslexic but excellent on anything practical and the eldest was the most suited, but I don't think that it would have been the right place, he was Science orientated and went to Sheffield University(his first choice), from his Comprehensive, and he loved it. Every DC is different and should be treated as such. I am just as proud of my dyslexic DS getting a C in English GCSE as I am of my more academic elder one getting an A.
I firmly believe that you should visit the school on a normal working day and ask lots of questions. My DSs went to the local primary which serves a mixed neighbourhood of private and council owned properties,(and you can't generalise there, I know lovely children from the council homes and children with appalling behaviour from homes that cost over £300,000), and on to the local comprehensive which does well but will never head a league table because it has everyone from SEN to Oxbridge students (they regularly get a few to Oxbridge).
I have worked the system, I am deliberately in an education authority area where nearly all the schools are good. I wouldn't send my DSs to a failing school, it is not their job or mine to improve things.
I do want them to have a work ethic in school. Desiderata, way back on page 4, was horrified that DCs should have a work ethic. I think it is essential! When I say work ethic, I mean motivated to learn, interest and enthusiasm and the behaviour that makes it all possible-even more importantly I want parents who will support the school, value education and expect their DCs to obey school rules.

Fivecandles - You are wrong about grades too
"The proportion of university entrants going to Oxbridge from the top performing 30 independent schools was nearly twice that of the top performing 30 grammar schools -- despite having very similar average A-level scores." From a Sutton trust report into elite schools dominating Oxbridge places (the report is on that same link).

But Kathy there's a lot of research which suggests that performance at A Level and indeed at GCSE is not a good indicator of achievement at degree level and beyond BUT this is what is used by universities when they're considering applicants.

Schools and colleges should (and I really believe the vast majority do) identify students with Oxbridge potential (A grade profiles) and give them all the information they need to make an informed decision about the right university for them (whether that's Oxbridge or not). If the student chooses to apply to Oxbridge then they should (and usually are) supported in their application (and this should be a process. At my place we offer weekly sessions). Beyond that there's really nothing we can do.

If students don't think that Oxbridge is for them (even after being encouraged to apply and to visit) then that's a choice that must be respected. And really making Oxbridge seem accessible is more Oxbridges job than ours. But it's pretty hard to be both elitist and accessible at the same time IYSWIM. And Oxbridge is intentionally elitist.

Surely, if you have a truly gifted student, your main concern would not be to get them into Oxbridge for the sake of it, but to get them into a university that can offer the best in that particular discipline? Oxbridge don't hog all the best professors in every single aspect of every single subject.

But Swedes the proportion going is not the same as the proportion who applied. So I repeat my previous points. If a student who has an A grade profile chooses not to apply to Oxbridge after being encouraged to then that has to be respected. Or else, we're back to old school links and the admissions process. I'm quite sure that the country's top grammar schools do their upmost to get their students into Oxbrige.

"Schools and colleges should (and I really believe the vast majority do) identify students with Oxbridge potential"

You see, I don't believe that. Because I have met too many students who are very, very bright who say they have never had the possibility of Oxbridge entrance even mentioned to them before.

Agree Cory. Agree Abby. I think a parent or a student who makes decisions about their own or their child's education on the grounds of 'will this get me into Oxbrige or not?' has really missed the point. If my own children are identified as having Oxbridge potential and want to apply and feel that they will be happy there and have spotted a course that they will like at Oxford or Cambridge then fine. Until that time I won't give it a 2nd thought.

But, Kathy, I've met many who have. I'm teaching several two students this year who've got in. As I've said I'm sure there are exceptions. Schools who don't spot bright students and students who slip through the net but these are rare and getting rarer. And I'm sure there are private schools which are guilty of this too. I fact, there are probably quite a lot of bright students who don't get encouraged to apply to Oxbrige in private schools because they're just not quite as bright as the brightest where they would in a state school where they would probably be the brightest IYSWIM. And the exceptions are not a reason to write off the whole of the state system.

That should say we typically get about 5 in each year. I think it's 5 this year but I've taught 2. 1 still teaching.

"Schools and colleges should (and I really believe the vast majority do) identify students with Oxbridge potential"

I agree Kathy: it's hogwash!
Our school did not encourage DD. They were only interested in getting D-grades up to C-grades. Which is why DD (and many of her more able friends) didn't stay there for sixth form.

And there's still this overriding assumpiton kathy that if you don't go to Oxbridge you've somehow missed out. This is not how I feel at all but it's obviously how you feel? How will you and your kids cope if they don't get in? Don't you think that's an awful burden to bestow on your kids? The idea that you must strive for the best university in the country (which only educates a few 1000 in the whole country each year) and if you don't get in you're missing out? And that's a real problem with a hierarchical system.

5C: we typically get 1 in every 10 years!

Five candles - And when you say a student has got in this year, I assume you mean they have been offered a place as I am sure they need to get the required grades, don't they?

What grades did your dd have at GCSE fembear if you don't mind me asking?

As I've said I'm sure there are exceptions (and I'm quite sure that private schools let A grade students through the net too. Quite possibly more).

At my place we're totally geared up for Oxbrige from enrollment but then we're a large 6th form college. And we get funding for it.

Yes, but student already has AS grades and some A2 grades. As I've said he just got full marks in his January module for my subject.

He went to a poorly performing state school BTW. I'd love to tell you which one. Same thing with the other girl I've taught. Don't know about the other this year.

So you teach at a school with a strong history of Oxbridge application.... doesn't that just prove how atypical your experience is? There aren't many comprehensives that get 5 people in to Oxbridge a year.