New Statesman article on schools

[UnquietDad]

very interesting

Shows how the perception of state schools is skewed in the media, sometimes deliberately, by journalists and writers anxious to reinforce their own "choice".

(Who are all these writers who send their children private? None I know can afford it...)

This is a very interesting powerpoint presentation about boys' achievement levels at school, and it touches on race in a very nuanced way, even mentioning media reporting of this topic at one point. There are some stats in there, but mostly easy to digest, and there is a lot of very useful bullet-pointed information that does relate to the wider literature and which can be trusted.

underachievement: Contextualising ?gaps? in educational attainment DCSF Gender Agenda Conference Great Hall, King?s College, 28th November 2008 Dr. Steve Strand Associate Professor University of Warwick [email protected] 024 7652 2197 Gender Agenda conference presentation

I'm going to repost that link hopefully in a more tidy way.

underachievement: Contextualising ?gaps? in educational attainment DCSF Gender Agenda Conference Great Hall, King?s College, 28th November 2008 Dr. Steve Strand Associate Professor University of Warwick [email protected] 024 7652 2197 Gender Agenda conference

Go Boffinmum!!!

(and thank you. )

Well that failed abysmally as a tidy link, but it does seem to work.

A response to the point about independent school pupils dominating the A Level scene now. I would be surprised if they didn't, frankly. This is because it is a social class issue at heart, and social class is the most difficult thing to deal with in terms of educational provision, more so than race and gender. It is really because since the 1970s, we have effectively privatised the grammar school system in effect, and with it the education of many of our brightest children from our most ambitious families.

Now before you flame me, I am not suggesting for a minute that bright kids don't go to state schools and thick kids don't go to private schools. That is not my argument at all. I am saying that in the main, independent schools have more or less cleaned up on the selectivity front, and in doing this, attract on average a more academic calibre of kids with more demanding parents who want a lot for their money. Therefore expectations are high and they do better in exams. Most independent schools are middle class achievement ghettos.

This creaming off brings with it various social problems, as we all know, but in terms of academic achievement, independent schools and their parents and pupils have got it sorted for now. The question however needs to be 'what can be learn from their success?' and in fact we all know the answer. Fund each pupil to a much higher level, reduce class sizes, and be uncompromising on behaviour and homework. However that is a bit too much for the public purse to bear at the moment.

So we are left with patchy educational provision and no obvious means of propelling the UK's educational system into excellence. However overall we are seeing incremental change and it's not all bad. I will not veer into that topic now because I seem to be taking over this thread and lecturing away quite merrily.

Thanks Boffinmum. I found the presentation really interesting. Its a refreshing change to see statistics rather than anecdotes.

That's what I always think, roastchicken.

Boffinmum,

I agree that the Independent sector has in effect 'privatised' the grammar school system. Certainly, the selective, independent secondary schools local to me attract the brighter, middle class children from the (reasonably good) state primary schools in large numbers by keeping down the fees and offering a 'grammar school ethos'.

However, at the primary school level, many independent schools seem to taking a different approach. Local prep schools are increasingly adding in 'educational needs' support to meet the demands of parents who are not finding this support in the state sector.

So, in terms of 'what can be learnt from their success', I would think research into why private schools are so successful should be part of any national education strategy! Just claimimg parents are ignorent or lazy and wasting their money in choosing private education (as does Ms Millar) is totally missing the point.

FWIW our head of a non-selective independent school reckons that with no selection, our school ends up on around the 80th percentile in terms of results. Obviously the fees are a huge form of selection in themselves in terms of social background but I thought that was an interesting statistic.

Good points there. I suppose I would like to see a lot more ebb and flow between the two sectors myself, as the current polarisation makes me very unhappy, as do articles lauding one sector at the expense of another. There's basically nothing wrong with having alternatives to a state model for education, as it's here that real innovation often occurs (think child-centred learning for a start). It is always interesting to me that it is somehow considered acceptable to put your child in a private early years setting for the 12.5 hours a week of free nursery education, yet suddenly using the private sector at age rising five and above becomes A Bad Thing. Why?

I think more blurring of the distinctions between the two sectors would do a lot of good in terms of spreading best practice (by no means a one-way street), reducing mutual suspicion, and opening up both sectors more widely to different social groups. Like in the rest of Europe, frankly.

There is also an argument (made originally by Sir Peter Newsom) for getting the private sector a lot more involved in post-14 education in particular, when specialisation starts to kick in.

But research into why private schools are so successful seems to be something of a blind alley - it's a bit "well, duh!" for me.

It's not that the state sector has anything to "learn" from the private sector in a there-there, pat-on-the-head kind of way. It's simply that the state sector could be just as "good" given equal resources (the average spend per child in the state sector is around £5k while in the private sector it's around £8-9K), the chance for equally small classes, and the facility to select its intake.

Trying to make rocket science out of something which isn't, methinks...

I think that's true, increasing funding would help (but remember there is also additional funding to add onto the headline per capita figure for maintained schools, in terms of LEA central resourcing of things like Ed Psych services and SN provision, additional targeted grants, occasional capital funding of large scale projects and so on, so the gap is narrower than you think, and indeed shrinking all the time, as Gordon Brown would be quick to remind you). But there's also issues surrounding aspiration and expectation that are worth exploring. From the maintained school point of view they probably have a lot to offer in terms of sharing best practice about social inclusion and so on. As I said, it is by no means a one-way street.

But uqd, there are a lot of private schools who charge fees in the region of £5k and are unselective and their results are almost always significantly better.

I bet they still have smaller class sizes and are better-resourced than the comp up the road.

"It's considered acceptable to put your child in a private early years setting for the 12.5 hours a week of free nursery education, yet suddenly using the private sector at age rising five and above becomes A Bad Thing. Why?"

Because there is no universal entitlement to state run childcare/education for under 5s and so no political implications to making a decision to send your child to a private nursery? It is only at rising 5 that FM and MB's contention that: "It is well established that what makes a public service powerful is the use of it by all sections of the population, not just those without choice." becomes relevant.

So the logical conclusion of their argument is that any private sector involvement at all by definition renders a service less 'powerful', then? Our largely community-driven early years settings are not 'powerful'? Sounds like an ownership of the means of production argument to me, but given its provenance I am not surprised.

A further thought - do public services even need to be powerful?

BoffinMum, am liking the debating, but "There's basically nothing wrong with having alternatives to a state model for education, as it's here that real innovation often occurs." Surely if there were no private education, innovation would be all within the state sector. As Unquiet Dad says it's a bit "well d'uh" isn't it?

'It is well established that what makes a public service powerful is the use of it by all ­sections of the population, not just those without choice.' Is it really??

The threads on Mumsnet are full of parents trying to 'play' the state system to benefit their children. Moving house to be near a 'good' school, getting religion, tutoring for a selective school. So, we have polarisation within the state sector. Good schools (two thirds according to FM) and poor and failing schools.

The trouble is you just can't coerce 'middle class' parents to behave in the way that will suit the FM's of this world. Not when it come to their dc's.

And that seems to be her only solution to the problems in the state education system.

Smee,

Are you suggesting that the independent sector is stopping innovation in the state sector. How exactly???

I don't think that is the logical conclusion at all. Rather their argument is that if a significant number of people with choice routinely choose not to use public sector provision, then this has an impact both on how public sector provision is perceived and on how easy it is to deliver.

As to whether public services need to be powerful, well I suppose it depends on the definition of powerful in this context. If, as I suspect, by powerful they mean excellent, well, yes, this is certainly needed.

Slightly off the current point but just wondering when we we see an article written by one of her kids...'my state school hell'....'my interfering in my education mother from....'. Just a thought...

ScummyMummy,

Ooh! I always taken that phrase to be a practical one. That the use by the middle classes of a particular school would in itself improve the school. I hadn't realised that it was all about perception and delivery. That's great then. No need to send your dc to a failing comp. Just send them to a nice selective state school and the failing schools will get a boost in public perception and cheaper pencils!!

I'm afraid I don't understand your point, Amey.

What about if there were no private schools AND no selective schools?

Don't think at least one of FM's children will write 'my state school hell' as he is at Oxford, so it obviously didn't do him any harm.

My own point was that I think it's fairly self-evident that if particular schools/hospitals/community mental health teams/sure start centres/libraries etc are avoided by anyone with a choice then that will affect the way that service is perceived. This is true whether or not the service concerned is objectively poor or is in fact fantastic. It will also mean that the service has to deal with that section of the population with the fewest choices and highest levels of deprivation, making it even harder to deliver good outcomes.

This has nothing to do with whether or not people are right to avoid a particular service when they have a choice.

Amey, no not at all. In a more oblique way I was saying what Bagsfor is - the radical but sensible solution is to abolish the private sector. It would at least be a start in ironing out the disparities. Fwiw I think the state sector is often hugely innovative, so I was taking issue with BM implying that Private Education is a positive because it inspires innovation. The inferences being that private education's innovation validates it, but also that state education isn't able to be innovative. Far from true in both cases I'd say.