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.

Having teachers who are not up to scratch is not the sole domain of comprehensives. Two of the worst teachers I have ever met in my life on terms of subject knowledge and classroom management have jobs in grammar schools. Every school sadly will have teachers who are not outstanding

My children go to a Montessori school because I honestly believe it's a great form of education. I don't send them to private school just to 'not be with the riff raff.'

I wish that all kids had access to a Montessori school if the parents wanted them to go to one. Short of opening up charity schools myself, I don't see what else I can do to avoid being hypocritical?

Tetha, what you say is interesting but can you back it up? e.g How would the removal of private schools directly improve the comp school you work in, or the perhaps one you went to / send dcs to? Would the addition of say, 7 percent children of above average affluence make a dramatic difference to the outcome for the existing pupils and how would this actually manifest itself? Attracting better teachers? More PTA funds?

Where I live it's more like 25% we would gain if there were no private schools. You can't tell me that wouldn't make a difference to the classes! I do love this "better teachers" idea about private schools. All that makes them "better" is having been to a private school themselves. A teacher willing not to give up on children who have little faith in themselves, and not looking for a cushy number with incredibly supportive parents, is not in my book a bad teacher.

It's really interesting that while some people see abolishing faith schools as reducing choice (for the faithful) others see it as increasing choice (for the rest).

I think everyone should be entitled to opinions, but I do think opinions are more valid & less likely to change if people are practising what they preach and have children of at least secondary age. I have several friends who were very (some extremely) outspoken against private schools, but now send their child(ren) to one having discovered first hand the problems with the system.

I wouldn't say people should have to declare their position though, we know the situations of most regular posters. It's just down to the readers to apply a (sometimes large) pinch of salt to the views of people with less experience of what they are pontificating about.

I would sell my right arm to send my children to a Montessori past pre school, there aren't any where I live.

Bristol really is a case in point. Terrible secondary schools due to an enormous number of private schools. We now have a new secondary school slap bang in the middle of middle class housing, these houses sell for around £400,000 for a four bedroom terraced.

The school in which I teach is a good school because we have a mixed intake despite being in the grammar system. It is mixed in terms of income, class and education of our parents. In my tutor group I have children from council estates to a pupil whose family are landowners. I have students in my tutor groups who will leave with an A* in evey subject and those who will just manage to scrape a few GCSEs.

As a teacher it is an absolute dream, as a result it is competitive getting a job there so we have good teachers.

I have taught in a school where a significant number of parents had never worked, if your parents had a professional job you were considered to be odd. Not only was it a ghetto of poverty it was also a place where a shockingly high percentage of children were on the child protection register, children were poorly fed, dirty and violence and aggression was the norm. This school was within walking distance of huge houses and a "desirable suburb". These children on the whole went to a mixture of independant schools and this allowed my school to become a rather gloomy school where children expected to underachieve.

sorry to sound catty, but doesn't anyone find it worrying that quite a few teachers on this thread can't spell independent?

Sorry I will hand in my notice straight away.

There is a difference between spelling and typing and if you look at my posts they are full of typos as I type quickly rather than thinking about the keys. Infact if you check my posts, you strike me as the type of person who does this, I probably type independent differently all the time.

I did not think people were checking my posts to see if I were fit to do my job. It pisses me off actually that I am never allowed to be off duty and always under scrutiny so mumsnetters can feel pleased that anyone who teaches in a state school is as thick as fuck and lazy.

I will take your telling off minsmum and fuck off. You are clearly much more deserving of being on here.

I am probably totally over reacting but hey ho I have just found out that I am yet again losing another pregnancy. So let me have my moment. But hey ho it will give me time to scrub up on my typing/spelling .

jackstarbright- of course I cannot give you a theoretical percentage of potential improvement on a theoretical situation.

'Improvement' needs to be defined also... are we talking measuring improvement through exam results? (not in my utopia, we're not) Student happiness? Employment levels?

I am simply suggesting that the 'comprehensive' system has not been tried, and that it cannot be whilst private, faith and grammar schools exist.

If independent schools were dissolved, the standard of comprehensive schooling would go through the roof practically overnight- and not just from the massive increase in state funding which would have to come in order to placate parents- but in ways which Morosky describes so well. Believe it or not, children do not learn in a vacuum; they also learn from one another.

If you want me to produce trite, erroneous, and frankly made-up statistics in order to support my proposition in order to make it palatable, then you will be disappointed. I do not believe in a purely results-based evaluation of education.

Morosky

Hope you're ok...

Agree completely tether.

When people talk about 'choice' they mean that they want to be able to choose the best school for their own kids but not that x family in a sink estate from the other side of the borough should be able to take a place in the oversubscribed school in the leafy cathcment that they've just moved into.

Likewise, when you catch people talking about non-academic and practically based courses and schools for children who are 'not academically minded' it's never their own kids they have in mind. They want more grammar schools and more specialist schools with the assumption that their own kids will be able to get into them and sod everyone else's kids.

There is an abolute assumption that some kids are 'naturally' non academic and failure to recognize the huge link between poverty and other socio-economic problems and lack of academic success. Newsflash - kids with wealthy, educated parents are not born more 'academic' than anyone else they just have more opportunities available to them and likewise those born to parents who are living in poverty and not well educated have less yet they are denied these opportunities.

I cannot stand the prejudice that is spouted about some kids being special and deserving better schools than others. All kids are special and all kids deserve a great education not just those born to parents who are rick enough or pushy enough to get it.

Tether. I wasn't asking you for statistics - just yr own personal ideas for how a small increase in affluent pupils would benefit (in anyway you choose to define it) yr existing pupils. From yr last post you seem to be saying it was just that more resources will follow the private school pupils into yr comp (??)

Morosky - yr school sounds lovely. But is it the facilities and good teaching that attracts the middle (and upper!) classes or is it the other way around?

jackstarbright- interesting that you assume I teach in a comprehensive. I have not said as such. I think this belies your view of 'comprehensive' students- all I had said was that I teach students who are disaffected with education and sometimes engage with learning late.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question:

"Would the addition of say, 7 percent children of above average affluence make a dramatic difference to the outcome for the existing pupils and how would this actually manifest itself? Attracting better teachers? More PTA funds?"
-you can see how I might have assumed you were asking me for statistics.

True comprehensive education would result in truly mixed school communities whereby students learn not only from teachers, but from one another (they do this currently, but do not often learn about other social strata of society). There would be no choice, you go to your local school... if you think this would not result in a massive injection of government funding, you are naive.

"But is it the facilities and good teaching that attracts the middle (and upper!) classes or is it the other way around?"
What do you think?

fivecandles-
you really only read what you want to read don't you? When I talk about specialist/less academic schools I am actually speaking with MYSELF in mind!!! I PERSONALLY would have done much better at a specialist arts college than in the comprehensive I was made to go to (not a bad one by the way!). How is that not wanting the best for everyone?????
You make me so with your narrow-minded attitude!
tethersend-
Would you really make all comprehensives the same? I cannot see how this would help any child- variety?

pugsandseals- the only 'variety' we have at the moment is 'good' and 'bad'.

'Variety' would happen organically, and reflect the society the school was part of.

I think it would be dangerous to assume that choice/variety = excellence.

That's what they said when they privatised the railways.

Also dangerous to polarise 'the arts' and 'academia'. They are not always two separate entities.

Tether,

""I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question:

"Would the addition of say, 7 percent children of above average affluence make a dramatic difference to the outcome for the existing pupils and how would this actually manifest itself? Attracting better teachers? More PTA funds?"
-you can see how I might have assumed you were asking me for statistics.""

I was just refering to the 7-9% of children who are now privately educated!! I re-phrased it to a 'small increase' in my last post to avoid confusion.

If you aren't currently teaching in a comp, or went to a comp yourself then I guess you can't help me with my question.

Morosky - I just re-read yr last post. I hope yr o.k.

It seems I did misunderstand your original question. Apologies.

I didn't say I wasn't teaching in a 'comp'- I just didn't say that I was.

I was commenting on your assumption.

'Would you really make all comprehensives the same?'

What I would like to see is the same standard of education in every school (i.e. high) and specialist teaching of every subject in every school. And every school able to cope with the individual needs and talents of every child.

Some people don't seem to understand that more choice for some (in the case of schools usually an already privileged) means less choice for others (and especially those who already have limited opportunities).

'Specialist' schools i.e. specialist maths, art, whatever are one of the most ridiculous ideas that there's ever been in education. The reality is that the same kids go to these schools as have always gone to them and the 'specialism' may be of interest to a minority who would already have been attracted to this specialism anyway. I work near a specialist 'art' school by the way which has nearly 100% Muslim students. This is the most crass example of cultural insensitivity and so on.

'Specialist' schools are, indeed, an insane thing. they would be less insane IF and only IF it was the situation that children really could opt into going, or not going, to those schools on the basis that that school would brilliantly express an interest or aptitude that the school 'specialised' in.

And that would only happen if all state schools were equally brilliant, so the child would be choosing between brilliant schools, some of which just happened to explore a specialism in a particularly detailed, specialised way.

And if children came with just one specialism themselves, clearly defined at age 11.

I have never met a parent who chose a school because of its specialism. If you had a child who was incredibly talented at a particular sport for example they would soon outgrow the facilities and competition in their own school and need to be competing on a regional and then national level. Likewise with any other talent. Whereas every school should be able to identify and nurture the talents of every one of its pupils regardless of whehter thats sports or maths or sports and maths. And the assumption that students are only good at one thing is a nonsense. Very often students who are exceptionally talented at one thing are talented at lots of things. I've taught a gifted actor who was also an Oxbridge standard mathemitiian and the schools and college he went to got him to Cambridge to do Maths but where he has all sorts of oppportuniteis to pursue acting.

Exactly cherry and if there were enough schools for every talent that were all equally accessible!!!!

The main educational hypocrisy I see on here is where people want to impose a certain system (e.g lotteries) on others while rising above it themselves, either because their children are home ed or private ed or now too old for school.

I'm not necessarily agreeing there should be a "cards on the table" declaration imposed, but knowing a bit about the poster's own situation can help to inform and clarify where they are in the debate.

(My children go to the local state primary school. They will also go to the local state secondary school. We are lucky that this is a good one. I went to a selective state grammar school. DW went to a non-selective state comp.)