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.

UD - Agreed.

Oddly enough, I came across a rather lovely RL example of this a while back.

A mum (mum A) was saying how upset she was about the fact that people were renting in the catchment of a local, high-performing comprehensive (school A). As a consequence of this, she was unlikely to get her dc into said comprehensive. She was worried about the alternative they were likely to be offered (school B).

Another mum (mum B) told her off roundly for expressing doubts about school B. School B was doing really well! School B has just had lots of funding! School B has had a great ofsted, which highlighted its value-added-ness, and brilliance at dealing with disciplinary issues and challenging intake! How could she adopt such a middle-class, reactionary attitude!

Fair enough. Except that mum B, the year before, had, herself, moved into the catchment of school A, renting her own house out and renting in the catchment of school A, in order to make absolutely sure her dc didn't attend school B ... . [hmmm]

It's not generally hypocrisy though. It's more that everyone inevitably builds their idea of fairness around what benefits their own child directly. If you live in the catchment of a good school, it's highly likely that you will come to the conclusion that catchments are the fairest way; if you take the trouble to go to church every week and live near a good C of E school you are very likely indeed to think that there is nothing wrong with the admissions policies of faith schools etc etc.

Actually those who are fortunate enough to have opted out of the state system entirely are probably marginally more objective about this than the rest of us.

I've said this before, I'll say it again.

I cannot understand why we bicker about the "fairest" way to "share out" the meagre supply of "good" to "reasonable" state schools.

We expend energy trying to scrabble around, doing the best for our dc, when the shocking truth is that waaaaay too many schools are simply a disgrace in a first world country. Well, they are in London, anyway.

We are busy trying not to offend people who teach and manage in the awful schools, and the children in them. Which is right and proper. They should not be insulted. But we waste too much energy on that, when, actually, we should be really, really angry that this is the situation for too many kids.

Instead of just guiltily scrabbling for the best for our dc, and guiltily keeping quiet, we should be getting really angry and seriously organising protests.

Yes, I know a lot of you will think that's way over the top but, honestly, some of what's on offer here in London makes me seriously angry/upset.

Zepherine - I thought your post was true, too.

Sorry, i should have said that, instead of ranting ... .

I don't think what Zephirine said is true at all. Not the last bit, anyway.

Why so?

Well, I'm still debating the first bit, but I certainly don't think buying your way out of the state system gives you some kind of magical objectivity about its merits. In fact, it can often do the opposite.

No. It wouldn't give them magical objectivity of course. But how could it make them less objective? We all have an interest in the system being a particular way after all. They have none.

No, actually ZD, I don't agree with the last bit, either.

I take the first bit of your post to mean that people's outlook on education is, generally, determined by their experiential position. that can be weakly, in that most people will argue from a position informed by personal experience, or strongly, in that people argue from a position of self-interest.

I think that bit has an element of truth.

I don't think that those in private education are necessarily disinterested. In fact, far from it. quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Eg. It is quite strongly in the interests of those in private education to argue for the cheapest state provision possible, rather than the (expensive) best.

Sigh.

I'm rather missing BoffinMum - I used to like reading what she had to say ... .

Going private certainly can make you less objective about the state system.

Private school customers have a vested interest in justifying their expenditure on the luxury product, therefore they will often do so by rubbishing the quality of the "free" product.

But cherryblossoms, if they were half way sensible they would see that it was in nobody's interest to go for the cheapest option, as everybody has an interest in a decent state education system for the sake of a well-functioning society, regardless of whether their own children benefit directly. And in any case, I haven't seen any private schoolers arguing this.

On the other hand, from reading the many posts on these threads it seems very clear that people take their own position as a starting point, and from there will tend to argue passionately for change or the status quo accordingly.

I certainly agree with you there, unquietdad. But that has no bearing on a private-schooler arguing the pros and cons of lotteries, faith schools, catchments etc.

Doesn't it? I think it certainly does. We will have to agree to differ. I don't think you can really know enough about the system if your own children are not involved in it.

jackstarbright Sun 08-Nov-09 15:24:17
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?

I think the middle classes are attracted to our facilities, for reasons I dont want to go into online (as it will give away where I teach) we needed to rebuild part of our school and were given money to do so. Our head has a very strong vision that our students should recieve an independent or grammar style education. So this money was used to build stunning buildings and create what he calls a university campus style feeling. Before we had these facilities we were oversubscribed but now that we have them we are very very oversubscribed and parents from way out of catchment are trying to get their children in. Our results are getting better and better every year and our intake is getting more and more "middle class" every year. It is still though, beacuse of our geographical location though very mixed. We have a bright year 11 group this year and an even brighter year 11 group the year after, I am not sure if there is a correlation between the changing nature of our intake and the rising ability levels of our pupils. I think we are aiming for over 80% a-c including maths and english for the year that our current year 10s will finish their GCSEs.

I teach the grammar stream in every year group and it is increaingly noticeable that our students from more affluent homes or with professional parents are in the top set, whereas in the bottom sets the children have a very different background. I also think some of those students struggle with the way our school is changing, someone I teach ( who actually is very clever but is not top set material) has a regular rant about how our school is trying to make everyone middle class and we are trying to make our school one of those posh schools. Some of our parents are also quite intimidated by the school while others seem to revel in it.

We also attract quite a few leftie middle class parents who deliberately opt out of the independent and grammar system, safe in the knowledge they have managed to get their offspring into a good school.

We are a specialist school and while I don't think people choose us beacuse of our specialism we do take that specialism very seriously and provide a lot of arts opportunities for the local community. I don't think that the teaching in that department is any better than the rest of the school though or that students achieve at a higher level in that subject. Infact despite the fact that I can't spell I get if not the best results in the school they are amongst the best.

For the people who asked, I am tearful and confused but fine. Thankyou.

Unquietdad, that is a different issue. They may well not have thought as hard about it as we have. But you must see that, for example, the fact that you live close to a good state school is going to colour your view of how the admissions system should work. Can you really, in all honesty, say that if you lived in a place where the only option for your children was an utterly dire failing school, and you did not have the resources to move, that you would feel quite so negatively about lotteries?

But someone in that position might not be able to see the full picture about what a lottery would imply. I don't think it "colours my view" exactly of how the state system should work, because I am under no illusions about the current system - I don't necessarily think the system we have is the best one. This is partly because of league tables and "choice", which were always going to be a bad, half-arsed idea.

I'm just not in favour of replacing what we have with something worse.

Morosky - Sending a little loving feeling in your direction.

ZD - Well, historically, our state education system has been largely determined by those situated closer to private than state education, with the counter-balance that they are answerable to an electorate who are largely place closer to the state system.

I'm not sure about the utilitarian argument, though - that it's in everyone's interest to have the best state system possible. Sadly, the fact that we don't have a really great state education system, or not universally great, anyway, suggests that, actually, it is either, on balance, "better" (as in, the greatest good for the greatest number") to have a cheaper, patchier system than a great, more expensive system or that it is, actually, "better" to have a system that implicitly produces a populace of very stratified educational outcomes.

I so get what you're saying, though. I, too, think that it would, actually, be better to have a great educational system.

I agree that league tables and the choice con are a big part of the problem.

Lotteries might be worse for you. Might be significantly better for some.

Oh, no more "worse", please.

You know, the one thing about the lottery system is that it will make explicit the fact that a HUGE part of the problem is that some schools are simply not fit for purpose and that there really is an element of compulsion in the state educational system.

Yes, you can opt out; if you can afford to go private, or not work and home ed. But that isn't an option for many of us.

I do wonder if there isn't a playful little Trotskyist somewhere, thinking that the lottery system will finally cause the parents of the land to rebel.

But overall I feel the benefit would be outweighed by the chaos they'd cause. That's not just because of my own situation. I might get a "better" school in a lottery - who knows?

What we need is for the government to stop pretending all schools are equally good and actually do something to bring that about, then make the catchment school the default school. You'll need a very special exceptional reason NOT to attend it.

cherryblossoms, in a way this is very much the reason I am prepared to entertain the idea of lotteries. At the moment, those who have the resources to move house/get faith etc can avoid the really dire parts of the education system every bit as effectively as those who opt out of the state system altogether. So the incentive to sort out the failing schools is limited, and the two tiers of the system become increasingly rigid. If all those really motivated parents had to direct their energies to improving the less good schools where their children had ended up, we might actually see some change for the better.

Perhaps I should clarify that I am neither little nor a Trotskyist. And certainly not playful (but that will be obvious to everyone by now).

Perhaps selection is actually the most important factor for all schools? After all, we have the lowest level of social mobility ever at the moment!
Why?
Because we have atken away the only means by which you can better yourself- a grammar system.
So for those that preach about opportunity for all, I argue that comprehensive is actually the way to take away aspiration and life changing opportunities!

We will never have a school system where all schools are equally good, as long as we have such an unequal society. Maybe we could do something about poverty, and then watch and see what affect that might have on all these "failing" schools.

Maybe the information we need to declare, is whether we have changed our own social situation?