Ending Educational Hypocrisy on Mumsnet

[zanzibarmum]

Do you think we might end educational hypocrisy on these threads by having to declare what type of school our DC go to - you know the sort of thing the mumsnetter who wants to abolish faith schools on the grounds of fairness while sending own DC to private schools or the mum whose children are in high-performing postcode protected state schools and wanting to abolish GS.

Or is the apparent inherent hypocrisy ('do as I say not as I do') so favoured by politicians and some MNs part of the fun.

jackstarbright Sun 08-Nov-09 20:58:23
Morosky - Glad you're ok(ish). Are you saying that maybe there is no such thing as the perfect school for all and there is a cost to letting the requirements of middle class parent's drive the development of a school?

jackstarbright I didn't mean to say that but maybe I am, my head is quite muddled today, hopefully understandably.

I think there is an issue with schools failing white working class kids, perhaps not the biggest issue but one that interests me as that is my background. I have to say as a pupil it was not something that i noticed but perhaps that was because I went to school in a working class northern town. MOst of the students came from homes like mine, poor, uneducated and lacking aspiration. Most of the kids in the top set were like me.

I do think that society has become more divided, not necessarily in class terms but maybe in terms of who can and can't get credit and can therefore maintain a lifestyle that appears to be middle class. Perhaps this is not the case, maybe I notice this more as I have moved out of my little northern bubble.

I notice in my tutor group that there is a divide between pupils who seem outwardly middle class and those from the council estate or the part of our catchment with a rougher reputation. Maybe it is natural that people gravitate to people like themselves.

I do sometimes wonder if my school does have a hidden agenda of wanting to make our pupils replicas of ourselves and those students who can't or won't do that will find it difficult to succeed.

Sorry I think I am tired and rambling, will perhaps find myself a frothy thread before someone pops up to tell me that I am thick again.

There is a huge correlation between educational achievement and family income, but a lot of the problems with social mobility are set way before 11. Some studies show that a child from a poorer background is already falling behind by age 3, so the difference in outcome isn't all down to schooling (let alone just secondary schooling).

I don't like grammars because I don't think any test can accurately select the top x% & I hate the idea of branding children as failures at 11 & I don't like the tutoring culture that seems to surround many of them. But, they are good for those lucky enough to go & I can see why some people like them, but I think on balance I'd abolish them if it was my choice.

I don't like faith schools as I think they reduce choice for the majority; but otoh they do seem to work well, so I can be pursuaded that we should keep them (as long as there is some choice for those of different/no faith in any area).

I do like the idea of good comprehensives - this would be my preferred option. There are some near us that are among the top in the country, but there are also some (very) bad ones and regretably it does to a large degree seem to revolve around catchment area 'class' which I can see no way around really.

I'm thinking that the way forward is probably not far off what the government is trying - ie: putting lots of money into or closing down failing schools; incentivising good teachers to work at them; making links between good and bad schools & trying to share good practice. The trouble is that these measures don't always seem to work either and there's still an extremely worrying gap between best & worst.

It's always going to be an imperfect system unfortunately, though that is no reason not to try & improve it whereever possible. Even lotteries could work in some areas (I have big reservations about transport arrangements etc, but in towns with 2-4 schools & good transport facilities it might work). I will be interested to follow the impact it makes in Brighton.

Of course, as my dcs are lucky enough to be in private education (though dh & I were state educated) my views may be disregarded, as I'm sure they will be in any case by anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Morosky-
Sorry, I may be missing the point here but how on earth do you tell which children are working or middle class? (surely they all look the same in their uniform???)

At my home counties comp the 2 top sets were mainly middle-class kids. Dh's comp was in working class inner city area with very few middle class kids. Mine was a seriously poor school, his was reasonably good.

The only explanation I have is that my school was little more than a secondary modern with a 25% influx of grammar calibre kids. The head and most of the teachers were the same and there was minimal updating to the facilities. I don't think the school knew what to do with bright kids and the result was a total leveling down (for all children). Few of us went directly into higher education, though many have later in life.

Dh's comp was purpose built, with a strong head and motivated staff. Also, it was a catholic school, so a reasonable proportion of the pupils were from immigrant (Irish and Eastern European) families. As a result the school had a strong ethos and work ethic.

You can see why I would take some convincing that merely drafting in some middle class children will improve the educational outcomes for all the pupils.

snokie - interesting comments. A question if I may. Would you support a proportion of the places in private schools being made available to local children who feel they have no other schools available, regardless of the admissions criteria of the particular private school.

Sorry am I not getting it?

If everybody else has to sit an entrance exam to get into a private school why should another child get in without it?

Surely that would take away the schools right to stay selective?

"Would you support a proportion of the places in private schools being made available to local children who feel they have no other schools available, regardless of the admissions criteria of the particular private school."
There used to be provision for free places at independent schools, but it was based on academic selection. It was called Direct Grant and then Assisted Places and was abolished by the current government soon after it came to power.

cherryblossom I never said that grammar schools such as they are now were the most important part of 'the problem' whatever you mean by 'problem'.

My problem with schools in my area is faith schools. But the issue that has been discussed here is that there is no such thing as comprehensive education while faith schools and grammar schools exist and while middle class parents can work the system by skipping catchment areas, adopting a faith, buying a second house etc, etc.

I also dispute your claim that there are schools with a mainly middle class intake that are not doing well depending on what you mean by 'not doing well'. If they have a middle-class intake they are almost certainly high up the league tables so doing well in terms of exam results. Cause and effect both. If they weren't high up the league tables the middle classes would scarper and vice versa.

If you mean not doing well in terms of value added maybe not.

Currently around 30% of students attending private schools are in receipt of some sort of busary but this is usually means tested and usually on condition that students at least pass the admission test.

But the whole charity status debate means that private schools are having to offer much more to students from state schools either in the way of shared facilities or shared expertise. E.g. the school my kids attend offer special classes to particular year groups in science and other subjects.

Arguably the private schools are doing more for poor kids than state grammar schools especially given that they're privately owned and funded whereas state grammar schools are publicly owned and funded.

"Sorry, I may be missing the point here but how on earth do you tell which children are working or middle class? (surely they all look the same in their uniform???)"

pugsandseals, this tells me all I need to know about the level at which you are debating.

I actually cannot spend any more effort on arguing with you when you believe this to be true.

Staggering.

Fivecandles you said in your most recent post that there can be no truly comprehensive system while middle class parents work the system by skipping catchment areas, adopting a faith, buying a second house etc, etc. Leaving aside your assumption that faith schools are populated exclusively with the middle-class, why doesn't your ire extend also to middle class parents.

Also from a policy perspective to get the desired system that we all want what would you abolish first faith schools or or private schools; or should this be done on the same day - a sort of day zero?

Fivecandles you said in your most recent post that there can be no truly comprehensive system while middle class parents work the system by skipping catchment areas, adopting a faith, buying a second house etc, etc. Leaving aside your assumption that faith schools are populated exclusively with the middle-class, why doesn't your ire extend also to middle class parents who go private.

Also from a policy perspective to get the desired system that we all want what would you abolish first faith schools or or private schools; or should this be done on the same day - a sort of day zero?

Pugs I think I quite carefully said seem outwardly middle class rather than labelling all children. ( if I did not I certainly meant to)

As someone who sees herself as working class but is often seen by people who don't know me as very middle class I am very aware of how judgements can be made and be wrong.

I was thinking mainly of my tutor group, I know what all their parents do, I have met all their parents, I know what their attitude to education is, what kind of house they live in. Some of my students describe themselves as being of a class as well, the subject that I teach lends itself to such discussions.

Tethersend-
my point being that it is very easy for a teacher to make assumptions about class and background. This can then lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy!
I feel that to talk about schools being 'mainly' working or middle class is treading on dangerous ground. ALL children are capable, but can unfortunately be labelled by poor teachers.

Zanzibarmum, I'm very much in favour of bursaries on a sliding scale up to full remission to children whose parents can't afford fees at private schools. I'm not so sure about 'regardless of the admissions criteria'. I'm struggling to think of any admission criteria of local independents that isn't academic, and while if a school takes a fairly wide range of abilities then that may be more possible (although I think there is usually a cut-off somewhere below which children would struggle and probably not have the appropriate range of courses available to them), for a more selective school (say top 5 or 10% ability) it would clearly be madness to admit children who were very much lower ability.

Morosky-
Again, I believe it is far too easy to label people. Just because they have a big house/car etc. doesn't mean they are middle class! Also works vice versa.

I am not saying that faith schools have exclusively middle class intakes. There is a huge amount of research which tells us that they take many less students from low income families (i.e. on free school meals which is the indicator used for this)and less with a statement of SEN. Because there are barriers (letter from local priest, churchgoing etc) they can and are more socially exclusive. Educated and motivated parents can find ways of overcoming these barriers whereas parents on low incomes will not find this so easy. There is loads of stuff on this. I'll see if I can find some links.

If it were up to me I'd ban the lot of them - private, faith etc but of course this will never happen. Far too many vested interests. Faith schools get loads of money from the church too.

Here's a really good example:

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/jan/31/schools.schooladmissions

Also, zanzi, as I've said I have no ire for parents who play the system or opt out of the system. They can't be blamed for doing the best by their children. It is the system that is the problem and the 'choice' agenda.

All children deserve the best education possible- I agree with you there fivecandles! But I don't agree with a 'one size fits all' approach and never will. We are all different, and what is best for one will not necessarily be best for another! We therefore have a right to choose the type of education which is best for us. My belief is that the easiest way of providing this is by a very broad/large primary curriculum, followed by a secondary sector which provides different curriculum for different learning styles.

I challenge anybody to disagree with at least the idea of teaching to the style & preferences of the child rather than preaching to the masses!

We all choose our jobs & friends as adults.
School is currently VERY removed from this reality & comprehensives shove children together that are unlikely to got along easily IMO.

I did type a reply to you about an hour ago pugs only for the dog to jump on the laptop and manage to shut it down. I am however quite aware that a house and car don't make someone's class.

Acknowledging the fact that class is subjective, personal and means something different to everyone I did say outwardly middle class.

I am very aware that although I see myself as working class my dds school see us as a middle class family, economically comfortable, both parents are well educated and have professional jobs, both very involved in dd's school and she spends her time on extra curricular activities such as horse riding, ballet and other "educational things" Despite all of those outward signs I consider myself to be working class.

Middle class for teachers is a lazy way of summing up a lot about a child but at its most basic it means a child that comes from a family in which the parents are educated to at least degree level and have a profession.

In my previous school very few parents fell into that category, in my current school many more do. In my previous school, as a teacher I was considered by my pupils to be well off financially. In my current school I am seen as poverty stricken, infact one class said to me once "you are really clever Miss why one earth did you become a teacher?" If I were in an independent school I would wonder if I were teaching one of Xenia's offspring.

I became a teacher because I wanted to improve life chances for kids like me. I was the first person in my family to go to univesity from school, I am one of the few people to have a professional job and when my life took a turn for the worse I had my education to put me back on the right path. I don't want to pigeon hole anyone or produce self fulfilling prophecies but I would like to think that a bright child from a family like mine has an equal chance to a bright child from an outwardly "middle class" family. I am not sure how successful that is, but I am sure that it has more chance of being successful within the comprehesive system as opposed to the grammar system as it exists today.

I don't actually think comprehensives do shove children together who don't get along. Children are very good at selecting their friends and finding people like them, every now an again they surprise themselves with a new unexpected friend.

I know that a clever child like me would never have got into a grammar despite the fact I was Oxbridge material. My parents would never have sat down and coached me for an exam, they probably couldn't have been bothered to take me to the exam and they would have never driven me across town had I got a place.

Well at present no one has a "right" of choice, at least not meaningful choice in any case. If you think that the only way that such a choice could be offered is by having separate schools for separate "kinds" of children. Schools have to be a certain size and filled to a certain capacity for them to be economical. How would this plethora of choice be available in rural areas? Indeed how would such schools be accessible to all even in towns?

I have one child who is a bit of a performer and would love a school with a strong drama bent. The other is more science orientated. For logistical reasons I would prefer them to go to the same school and in any case I'd like to make sure that my "artsy" child is stretched academically and my "sciency" child has lots of exposure to the arts. In fact what we were lightly to have ended up with in the UK was separate sex schools, both having spent a fair amount of time in special measures, one of which is supposed to be a "sports college". We figured out which other non faith, non single sex schools the children could physically get to, and there was one. Which we almost certainly wouldn't have got into. And that was in London.

Now obviously it would be much better if the local schools were decent schools (no very good reason why they weren't). But to meet everyone's preferences there would need somehow to be many more schools, and many of them would have to be below capacity in order to accommodate choice. So it would be very expensive. Or children would have to be bussed around (also expensive, and local friendships would be the cost from the point of view of the child). Also what about children who are late developers - I went from all science to doing humanities - it was important that my school had good courses in both.

Spotted this interesting Fiona Millar article in the Guardian Education Section.

school admissions must be closely regulated

Is this school an example of what she is talking about?

I couldn't read fivecandles' link because it contained the words "Ruth Kelly." Just looking at these words brings me out in a rash.