Education and social mobility - John Humphrys is coming on for a discussion, Fri 29 Jan, at 11.30am

[GeraldineMumsnet]

John Humphrys is filming a documentary about education for BBC2. He is embarking on a journey around Britain to meet parents, teachers and students.

His task is to examine the relationship between education and social mobility - why is it that education cannot close the attainment gap that exists between children from the poorest and wealthiest backgrounds?

Government education advisor David Woods has accused parents of being prejudiced against their local state secondary schools. Dr Anthony Seldon, Master of Wellington College, calls the current independent sector an apartheid system. Professor Stephen Ball, from the Institute of Education, concludes that grammar schools, parental choice and faith schools have all been responses to middle-class concerns.

John is coming to Mumsnet this Friday (29 Jan) at 11.30am to hear your experiences. Are you benefiting from parental choice in education? Is it at the expense of others? Does the current system put too much responsibility on parents to make the right choices? Is it too stressful? Do you feel you have to top-up your children's education eg home-tutoring, learning an instrument, employing a lawyer? Are they worthwhile investments, or necessities that cause resentment?

Please post your thoughts here. Thanks in advance.

DD is currently only 1 so I haven't had to engage with the formal education sector yet, and am sure my thoughts will be very affected once I do have to deal with that reality. However I wonder, in a devil's advocate-slash-socialist fantasy kind of way, what would happen if the strong minority of parents who send their kids to private schools due to fears (justified or otherwise) about failing state sector, instead donated their money and the time they spend earning that money into those state schools. Yes, this is unfair in that they are spreading their extra resources around all the other children in the community rather than spending it only on their own. Their own children wouldn't benefit as directly and quickly, sure. But would a cabal of motivated, well-educated parents willing to volunteer and govern their local schools, and each donate a couple of thousand a year to improve its resources, plus their intelligent motivated kids perhaps raising aspiration amongst their peers, make such a difference that everyone would (eventually) benefit? Socialist pipedream I'm sure.

"Schools should be absolutely clear that their primary duty is to do well by children, not their parents."

Absolutely.

My DS' primary is bottom of league table in our area.

They asked parents to come in at 3pm on Wednesday this week for a chat with teachers about supporting our kids with reading. Most of the Mums in DS' year group don't work and there are 60 kids in the year. Three Mums showed up (I was one of them). One Dad showed up (my DH who didn't have work that day - he's freelance). So DH and I made up half the attendance of parents for a class of 60. Now maybe we were being a bit pfb -pob actually! - whatever, I don't know why the other mums/dads didn't go, and I'm honestly not judging any individual. But I mentioned it to a friend whose kid is at the sought-after church school, and they'd had a similar event with 100% attendance by parents. Surprise - the church school scores 100% in SATS too (L4 Eng+Maths). Ours scores 50%. Go figure...

DS' teachers are amazing - DS has made incredible progress. The Head is inspirational and hugely committed. All of our friends are horrified that DS goes to that school, but then shocked when he is ahead of, or level with their own kids' attainment in their private or highly sought-after church primary. There are some other really bright kids in his year group who are doing really well, but how can they keep pace with him if their parents don't support them?

And here's the really awful part which I'm ashamed to admit to - we've applied to move him to a better-performing school where he's likely to get a place. So after all the school have done for my DS it's likely they'll lose him. But I will do what's right for him even if it's against my own political inclinations. He's staying in the state sector though - we don't have the money to do otherwise. But we are committed as parents to put the effort in on his behalf, and I believe that is what makes a real difference in the end. I definitely believe that's what makes the difference in the SATs scores between the two schools. And I believe that it is very, very wrong.

sorry i didn't mean to suggest that all children in the state sector are UNintelligent in my last sentence there... being a bit tongue in cheek

upandrunning, spot on with everything you have said. If only you were in charge of education, the country might stand a chance.
The experts probably have as many degrees as a tin-pot dictator has medals, but they don't seem to have an ounce of common sense between them.

"Well why put them heads together on round tables (at 11 years old!) instead of facing the teacher?"
at last someone has dared to say it, these touchy-feely policies will be the ruin of us

Someone else summed it up beautifully at the beginning when the referred to 'the illusion of choice.' Of course, all of us would choose a Porsche over a Transit Van, but to dangle it in front of us, encourage us to ask for it, and then say 'Sorry, we've run out of Porsches, your next door neighbour took the last one, but here's your transit van' creates an unbelievable amount of resentment and bewilderment. Sorry, somewhat chilish analogy for such an intelligently handled debate, but I think you get my point!

Also:

We need to re-examine the (more and more popular) notion that school uniform is some magic leveller, and that it removes all evidence of class and wealth in a school; as well as suddenly creating some kind of super-disciplined school of angelic children.

This is not the case, and more and more I hear of schools that previously did not consider whether or not a child was wearing the right tie to be a priority suddenly imposing a serious uniform code. I think this is a misdirection of time, money and resource.

Builde

Your parents recollect that they received a poor education but they both got into Cambridge !

They both went to different grammars but still received a poor education and still each got into Cambridge.

I'm assuming that they were naturally very bright and had parental assistance.

SAT's are hideous too (despite the trite mantra that they are about assessing the school and not the child), all tests are unpleasant news for those found to be below average in ability or bacause they have been failed by their educational establishment. However,if we are to tailor a child's education to their needs it is important to have some degree of assessing their needs. Yes 11+ testing can be seen as a hideous seperation of sheep and goats or whatever unpleasant euphemism (sp?) one wants to turn to but how can we tailor education if we are not allowed some independent method of drawing a line somewhere.

Girls whose true potential had not shown up in the 11+ and late developers were added to various classes all throughout my grammar school time, having transferred in from the secondary moderns. A girl from my primary school got in on headteacher recommendation alone as she was off ill for some weeks at 11+ time. No-one was ever transferred the other way though.

Education is a step up, but only one.

Dh and I are both from poor WC backgrounds, I am a recent grad studying an MA part time, DH is in his first year of University post-redundancy.

Whilst it has certainly given us hope of open doors, improved self esteem, hopefully taught our children the value of a work ethic it cannot step over every hurdle.

My life is not defined by my academic achievements, but by an absence of childcare for SN children in our County, if I had 23 PhD's it still wouldn't help. Poverty and social division is about a complex mix of circumstances, and whilst education is a large number of the rungs on the ladder out, it takes a complete and comprehensive package to actually help people. The escape mechanisms are as varied as the causes of poverty in the first place.

If I were looking at this in depth I would start by acknowledging the diversity of the poor classes- not all fit the stereotypes. Then address different causes individually, maybe try and place higher values on vocational training so that it is not seen as a less worthy sibling to degrees with high levels of unemployment (I have been told my Religioon and Philosophy degree is more valid than DH's electronic engineering related studies.... a comparison of employment rates fails to agree). Work with the actual problems- encourage fields that are short of people orfacing growth (Social Work,caring related fields etc) to run part time courses that work with people's RL circumstances (I would love to study Social Work but carer status prevents the hour commitment of a full time course). Address biased stereotypes of disability so that the disabled can find work more easily, give carers access to job centre support, bring back schemes such as the student mentoring on I worked on where we went into the valleys and worked with borderline students.....add that into education then you may get somewhere but ATM we have only half the jigsaw.

My county (Essex) still offers grammar schools. The trouble is, they are so few and far between, and their kudos so great, that the competition for places is incredibly aggressive. They take applicants from all over, some kids come in from London every day, or from Suffolk, so it isn't even for the cleverest Essex children.
They take only the top 2%, so of course the overwhelming majority of places go to children from private prep schools, children who have been tutored/hot-housed from a very young age in the strategies/skills needed to pass the 11- plus, and those whose parents are graduates/professionals. Most state primary schools offer only a cursory last-minute 11 plus prep club, perhaps one night a week after school, in the term before the exam. How can a naturally bright child of apathetic, working class low-achievers possibly compete when they are up against equally bright middle-class children who train for the 11 plus like other people train for the Olympics?

Is it any wonder that Colchester and Chelmsford Grammars consistently appear in the top ten state schools, nationally? So would any school who only wanted the cleverest 2%!

I think that local education authorities make it very hard to get children with special needs educated out of county. My son is profoundly deaf and has other problems too. I had to fight to get him into his school in Kent. In the end I had to get the local county councillor to help me. I have the same battle coming up again in two years to keep him at the deaf college until he is nineteen, it is hard enough coping with everything else without having to fight to give your child the education they deserve.

I would like to see an investigation into the scandal of middle class parents suddenly finding god as their children approach school age in order for their children to be eligible for church schools. Church schools are often (but not always) in the upper echelons of the league tables because engaged parents are willing to fill the pews of a local church to ensure their kids get in to the attached school. This ensures that these schools always have a disproportionately high intake of middle class children and the school continues to ride high in the league tables.

As someone very clever once said, schools are for teaching, not preaching.

Absolutely Barry: I've been seriously advised by friends to get my children baptised and make out as if we're practising Catholics (DH is lapsed, I am a nonconformist) simply to ensure more secondary school options. I am not lying to the church just to get my kids into a faith school! But the sytem encourages deception for the illusion of giving your children a better chance.

Absolutely BarryP.Noy just because parents of MCchildren may be more enagaged but certainly where I comefrom more likely to not be working shifts on a Sunday etc. It can be a barier even to those who have a faith (as I do) if your life is non standard,and IMEmany WC jobs are shift based,or the person has caring responsibilities in the wider family, whatever.

Mind,w e are in acompetitive Church school by luck of cathcment and I will not be choosing a place in the future. MC enclave completely unsuited to anyone who differs from a narrow norm.

One of my biggest gripes about state education (which is why I am investigating the private system) is that you are not actually allowed to ever criticise children no matter how poor their work is.

Even an essay blatantly ripped off the internet gets the comment "perhaps you could do more research" while spelling and grammar errors remain uncorrected...I have been told to tell DD that, if she gets a spelling wrong she is "nearly right"...sorry, no, the spelling was WRONG and needs correction.

A friend's boy has been suspended and his father can't understand why...looking back through the boys reports there are phrases like "seems to like being a member of a group and taking his lead from their behaviour" and similar. What they actually meant was "your son is hanging round with a gang who beat people up for fun" but they couldn't say that, so they put in wishy washy phrases and the parent totally misses some really vital information.

This is why we get people with a degree who cannot write to an acceptable standard and who cannot communicate an idea...I've interviewed some of them. They passed Eng Lit without actually having read an entire book...!!!!!!

If you look at any emergent economy children are being taught as per the 1950's and are expected to achieve a standard..not, "ooh dear, you didn't achieve that standard, why don't we make up another qualification where so few people fail we would save a lot of money just picking the 3 failures out of a hat each year."

Any exam system that has over 90% pass rate is not an exam...it tells you nothing about who is really clever and can apply themselves.

This is why social mobility is grinding to a halt because children are told whatever they do is just fantastic and they have passed! So what is there to aim for or work for?

I won't comment on our insane school entry system or I would explode in a puff of my own bile!

I have 2 daughters and they both go to private schools. We started in the local system, where our eldest was bullied and where it appeared that if she did not want to work they didn't push her (she said no they said ok). In the private system the attitude is different. She was expected to work, she was expected to respect the teachers and she was expected to have fun! Her attitude changed to become more in line with the schools. She works hard and thoroughly enjoys herself. She has had problems in the past and they were dealt with - the same day - and they didn't return. I am pleased to say it was the right choice for us. Yes, we have had to make sacrifices to pay for their education. It also means that I am driving 80 miles a day, just for the school run.

Would I consider taking my children out of this system? No, not at present. My local school is the school I used to go to and it wasn't particularly good then. Teachers (with the exception of 1 or 2) treated you like 5 year olds. You were not expected to work hard, the teachers didn't motivate you (indeed 1 used to lock us in the classroom just to prevent us from leaving!) and it was uninspiring. Many teachers had not ever been into the work place and as a result still acted like children themselves. You were not able to question them as they felt intimidated (or had not read around the subject).

We, as parents, do what is right by our own children. Many of us are made to feel guilty for the choices we make because it is not fair on others. We need to stop this. As a simple answer (and I am aware it's not simple), surely the only way we can start to stop the gap getting wider is to rethink the whole system. Bring in respect, fun and expectation that children will do well. Ensure that teachers are in the right profession - that they enjoy it, can interact with children, that children respect and listen to them, and that they have the time and the scope to do this well. Ensure parents are involved, that they help the teachers and help the children. Rather than telling children we don't want them to fail, lets tell them that they can achieve.

'so would any school who only wanted the cleverest 2%'

Sorry, must just correct myself there:

'so would any school that wanted only the top 2%.'

This is John Humphrys, after all.

Mr Humphrys

I find it interesting that you are coming at this from the parents' perspective. So often, we are told by educationalists how wonderful education is; it will be good to get the consumers' view.

BTW: try doing a survey of teachers and find out how many State teachers sent their kids to Private school. It is a surprisingly large number, so what does that tell you?

sitdownpleasegeorge.

My parents got into Cambridge because they are bright. You tend only to get a place if you're bright...that's they only thing Cambridge requires. A good education but lack of brain won't get you a place!

(They obviously met at Cambridge and then produced Cambridge graduates themselves and their siblings also went to Cambridge) but - to be honest - my father wouldn't get a place now; there is more competition! (My mother probably would - she worked harder)

Cambridge wouldn't give a place now to someone who only took a cursory interest in most of their education and had a motley collection of O-level results. They would expect all As at GCSE and A-level.

At his grammar school my father skived off PE and only worked at the subjects he was interested in.

Both my parents had 'interested' parents but this was long before the days of extra tutoring etc.

But this is one of my points; I don't think bright people need much of an education. I had great teachers but in the end my good results came from myself; the work I put in and my intelligence.

And this is why I find it distressing to hear of young children being excessively tutored. I remember sitting round at Cambrdige one day just when primary school league tables came in and realising that we'd all been to primary schools miles down the league tables. It had little impact on any of us.

I worry that the media scares people in areas where there are few educational problems. My dds are at a school that is considered 'rough' but they have great time and the behaviour is very good. I concede that in some place there are significant problems but I watch parents of four year olds panicing over trivial things at their local school.

Hello,
First of all I'm delighted to be here and thanks to everyone for their thoughtful input. It's an amazing response.
What seems to be coming through is that parental choice is a bit of an illusion and in fact that illusion can make parents more anxious. Would you agree with that?

Bless you Tiggy

I have not only committed numerous crimes against spelling and grammar in all my posts on this thread - but I have also use the F-word.

I hope he forgives me. I blame my terrible Thatcher years schooling

Yes - it is an illusion for most parents.

Definetly, I was very anxious in the time span of getting my son into his school, he had "grown out" of the the school he was at and i was worrying where my son would go to school.

Hi Builde
It's possible to be very bright but if you've got the sort of home where nobody takes any interest you how are going to convert your native intelligence into any sort of achievement at school - the chances are that you'll just become bored and disaffected. Surely what's happening in every child's home matters enormously - possibly even more than what's happening at school?

There is no parental choice. I don't know where the phrase came from. You may only express a preference. It is the schools that do the choosing, not the kids/parents.