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.

[SpeedyGonzalez]

As a former private language teacher I am always aghast when I hear about the levels of admin heaped onto the shoulders of state school teachers. It achieves nothing apart from providing somebody with lots of pretty forms which they don't know how to analyse, and has no positive bearing on the quality of education. We all know now that it actually damages the quality of education because teachers' time, energy and attention is being diverted from their actual reason for being there: to teach.

Instead they are having to waste valuable time filling in forms and training children how to pass exams rather than enabling them to engage with their subject material (ironic, considering the nature of the teacher recruitment ads - all about teachers inspiring kids). Teaching an exam class is a completely different animal from facilitating a vibrant, thriving learning atmosphere (I could have told them that before they introduced pointless SATs - would have saved the pillocks a hell of a lot of money) - isn't that what we all want for our children?

A good teacher knows their students inside out and will be able to monitor all aspects of their progress without the need for these pointless exams. So if schools and school organisations need to know how children are performing, and want to improve their performance, they must invest in teachers and in what goes on in the classroom. Somebody mentioned class sizes earlier on - bang on! As well as that there's ongoing teacher support to enable them to handle the varied emotional and behavioural needs of their students - but also it's essential that all students get the input to enable them to manage their own emotions and behaviours as well. There are many professionals who work across many schools in the private sector training teachers, parents and students in exactly this - one of my good friends is such a professional. The needs for this sort of training are different, but just as great, in both state and private schools.

It is bizarre that it's so clear to parents and teachers what is causing the problems in modern education, and yet the solutions provided by those in positions of authority involve mountains of expensive, unnecessary, wasteful paperwork rather than actually tackling the problem. SATs do not enable failing schools to improve; they simply increase stress (firstly by pressurising them to prepare for and run the SATs in the first place, and secondly when their results show that they are underperforming). Surely there must be an intelligent approach to raising the standard of education?

There's an interesting article in the latest issue of Intelligent Life asking 'Are We Too Professional?' (sorry, link broken but hopefully they'll fix it soon). To summarise, when people become obsessively focused on measuring progress this kills passion, instinct and creativity, which is where performance really thrives. So it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the excessive focus on measuring performance in school life has actively damaged the prospects of schools performing well.

[salvolatile]

Just wanted to post another perspective. Have just spent a morning at the GCSE year parent/teacher meetings for dc2, who is at leading independent school. What struck DH and I yesterday was the passion that most of the teachers had for their subject; how they lived and breathed it in a way that our dc has clearly thrived on and responded to. Not saying that the same passion doesn't exist in state schools - after all, how would I know - but I know that it is these teachers' absolute passion for a subject that inspires my child to strive and to attain in class and out. Are they more highly qualified? Are they paid more? D they have greater freedom in teaching style? Are the jobs more sought after so that these schools attract the best? I have no idea, but I'm sure someone is going to come along and tell me . All I know is - it works

[Remotew]

I feel sorry for parents and pupils who are in the areas where the there are grammar schools. The pressure must be stressful to get through the 11 plus or feel disadvantaged.

Our area is fully comprehensive and I have no complaints about this system. Most of the children I know are working to thier full potential and it's a marked improvement from when I went to the same school in the 70's.

Our nearest grammar is 40 miles away so not seen as a practical option.

We do have a private school that many local children attend if their parents have the means but the results at the comprehensive are better.

Feel lucky that a bright child attending our schools with the right expectation can do well and go onto higher education no matter what their background.

I don't know what the answer is perhaps the Labour Government of the 60's had the right idea to give every child the same education via a true comprehensive system. It just didn't happen except in certain areas.

[seeker]

A good teacher is a good teacher, regardless of sector. There is excellent teaching in state schools and indifferent, lazy teaching in independents. And vice versa. A truism, I know, but one that gets lost in this discussion.

And I repeat, the people arguing for grammar schools are those who expect their children to get in. They are not arguing vociferously for the return of Secondary Moderns because it doesn't cross their mind that their child might end up in one! The non selective schools in selective areas suffer - and around 77% of children go to them.

[BelleDeChocolateFluffyBunny]

I admit that I would want ds to go to a grammar school, I don't want his education to be harmed by children who don't want to be there, I've been here and got the post card.

I was in the top class, we all sat an exam and were tiered as a result of this, all of the top class did well yet we all behaved in different ways. There was a few who wanted to work but the vast majority messed about, it could be due to the work not being challenged or lack of discipline but for whatever reason, it was damaging to not just their own education but that of the whole of the class where the highest GCSE grades were 2 B's and 4C's. Out of the whole of the year group 3 people managed to get to university, less then 1%, this is nothing to be proud of, so many children were failed by this school. There's still schools like this all over the country and it's the children who have no choice. Not all parents have the knowledge to research a school, they just fill in the form and off they go. Not every parent is clued up to the system and knows how to play it. Apathy and indifference doesn't just rule the teachers.

[Heated]

Or the issue might be why aren't the secondary moderns better serving the needs of the 77% so it isn't seen as the poorer option? But this question can equally be asked in areas where there are just comprehensive schools and no selection, but one has the reputation of being more academic than another, where 'another' by definition, these days, means worse. But that would take real commitment and funding to sort out.

[elvislives]

seeker I am a huge fan of grammar schools and I hate the comprehensive system having suffered it myself. PLUS my eldest son went to the secondary modern (now called High School) and did very well. The school suited his needs, just as the grammar suited the needs of his brothers.

There is no reason why a "secondary modern" should fail children. Back in the olden days the grammar schools got more funding, but that isn't true now.

You always argue against grammars but don't your children go there?

[Remotew]

Belle, your experience of comprehensive sounds very similar to mine back in the 70's. The children of more academic parents did well but they were in a small minority. So I suppose parental influence can play a large part.

I do think that it has improved greatly since but it remains to be seen now that the children I know are making choices between FE, HE and work.

[exexpat]

I think any education system is going to have trouble finding a balance between promoting social mobility and providing the best possible education for all. There is no doubt that grammar schools - and the assisted places scheme, when it existed - have done a good job of taking many bright children from poor backgrounds and getting them into good universities and on to successful careers.

I did A-levels (20+ years ago) at an independent school with a large number of pupils on assisted places, and many of my 6th form friends went on to be textbook examples of the impact of a good education on social mobility: they came from families where no-one had stayed on at school after 15 or 16, manual jobs etc, while they were among the brightest at the school and went on to Oxbridge etc, and careers way beyond anything that would have been expected of them judging solely by their family background.

But both grammars and assisted places (or now, on a more limited scale, bursaries at private schools) take the most able ones out of comprehensives/secondary moderns, where they might have raised the general level of expectation/achievement and possibly pulled some of the nearly-as-able ones up a few notches with them. Great for the ones who get to soar, not so great for the ones left behind.

Research tends to show that bright children perform best academically when they are grouped with their intellectual equals, but moderately able children perform best when they are grouped with more able children. And obviously, if parents have any choice in the matter, most will choose the option most advantageous to their own children, rather than what might, on balance, be for the greater common good. I don't see how you can square that circle (and give parents an element of genuine choice) without being unfair to somebody.

[BelleDeChocolateFluffyBunny]

I left school in 1995 abouteve. Ds has spent a term an a half (I pulled him out) in a state school, he's a very bright boy and stood out like a sore thumb. He found the work fun but really easy so he gave up, I moved him due to the discipline problems in the school and the bullying. In the term and a half he was there he had his head rammed into a filing cabinet, he was punched numerous times, he had a football thrown into his face and a couple of boys attempted to pull down his underpants in the playground. I'd say discipline is still a huge problem in our schools. He now knows the meanings of swear words that I would not care to repeat. I refused to subject him to any more then this and moved him as quickly as I could. I would love to say things had changed, they haven't. He still had children shouting out in the class, he still had children refusing to sit down or do as they were told.

[Wastwinsetandpearls]

Just popping in on a marking break.

salvolatile
I would imagine that it is competiive to teach in many independent schools so they will attract very good staff. I enquired out of interest about a few jobs in independent schools and was offered two. Both were paying less money than I would get in the state sector. Good staff in all sectors would be passionate about their subject. We talk about it all day so we need to be. As well as teaching my subject I am studying for a second linked degree to develop my subject knowledge so I do literally love it.

BelleDeChocolateFluffyBun
I have taught in a school with top sets like this , as a teacher it is quite sould destroying and I would not wish to return there. It saps you of your energy and enthusiasm.

abouteve
I have had mixed experiences of teaching in grammar school areas.I began my career teaching in Yorkshire where there were grammars, you could tell the brightest pupils had been creamed off. I now teach in a grammar school area and there is not that feeling. We have recently been awarded a well deserved outstanding from OFSTED. I would never put my dd into the grammar over where I now teach and know many other parents feel the same way. Some parents actively choose us over the grammar infact. The presence of the grammar makes us a better school infact as we have to be good to keep hold of our brightest pupils.

[Wastwinsetandpearls]

SpeedyGonzalez I think state schools are getting better at streamlining data and only collecting what can be used.I find the data I collect on pupils invaluable and always act on it.

A good teacher can help kids pass an exam and inspire. I often have kids thank me for lessons, tell me I have changed the way they look at the world etc but still have time to look at exam technique. There just needs to be balance.

I do agree about class sizes though and the impact that can have. Last week we were writing reports.I had about 120 to write over two weeks while still being expected to keep everything else up to date. Last week I worked on average on average an 18 hour day from Monday to Thursday. I was going into work drained, stressed and snappy, definitely not my finest hour.

[BelleDeChocolateFluffyBunny]

I will always remember the NQ french teacher, she left our class in tears during every lesson. At 13 I could see what they were doing, I was helpless, there was nothing I could do, I remember trying to be nice to her, I didn't join in and got grief for it. The last lesson she took she had a complete meltdown due to the behaviour of the majority of the class and never returned to school. No child can learn in an environment like this and no teacher should have to teach in an environment like this. I don't think some schools are any different now to be honest.

[Wastwinsetandpearls]

Belle I have taught in environments just like that, have been sexually assaulted, lost a baby when thrown against a gate, been sworn at, pushed, shoved and threatened. I specialised for a while in working in such environments and thrived on it for a while. The lows were awful but the highs were amazing. But it took an awful toll on me and I could never do it now. I look back and wonder how I did it.

[BelleDeChocolateFluffyBunny]

No one should have to go through this twinset. I think it begins really early on, there's no boundaries any more, no community and it takes a village to raise a child. I really don't blame any parent for trying to find their child a place in a school where this doesn't happen, I've done the same. It shouldn't be happening in any school though, maybe a mistake was made when the cane was abolished, this appears to be when things went so down hill. There's no incentive for pupils to behave, there's no repercussions if they don't. Suspension means nothing, just a few days off school.

[Wastwinsetandpearls]

I don't think the cane would change anything tbh. Many of the kids who behave in that way are hit at home.

I think when you teach in a tough school your ideas of normality become skewed

[BelleDeChocolateFluffyBunny]

[Wastwinsetandpearls]

No need for sad faces I adore my job. I practically skip my way into work, well this morning it was more of a shuffle tbh as I am knackered.

Some of those things happen when I was a new naive teacher and I handled things in the wrong way. I am not excusing it, but they would not happen to me now.

[BelleDeChocolateFluffyBunny]

But surly they should not have happened in the first place though?

[ellokitty]

Interestingly, I live in a town with no private schools and no grammar schools. With the exception of the few who bus out to private schools etc, most children go to their local comp. Yet still the schools are generally rubbish. The league tables in town literally go from the top being the most middle class area, down to the worst performing school whose catchment is almost entirely made up from council estates. Yet, there are some excellent teachers within that school - some that have won awards and the like - but the results are still dire (9% Pass rate - bottom 20 in the country!). But even the best only got 57% - for what is often considered to be the best part of town. But this is very much a working class town. Drive 30 miles down the road to the next town along the motorway - a very middle class town and the best GCSE results are 71% with the worst being 45%. In that town, there are private schools but no state.

I think class / social background is a huge influence. I have taught in both towns, and the difference in parental attitudes, aspirations, expectations is just massive.

[Wastwinsetandpearls]

Of course they should not have happened, as I said I am not excusing any of it. But to teach in a school like that you need a tough edge and you need to be experinced or naturally very gifted. I was neither. Sadly tough schools find it very hard to attract the staff they need and end up with keen newbies as i was then. We can become cannon fodder.

[BelleDeChocolateFluffyBunny]

Sounds like the place where I used to live kitty.

[Wastwinsetandpearls]

It must be more than class/social background.

I came from a very poor, disinterested working class background and did well at school, offered my Oxford place, good degree always been able to pick my jobs.

Now as a working class woman my dd does well at school and I suspect will do even better at school than I did.

[Wastwinsetandpearls]

Thanks for the chat, I have 10 more books to mark. So I must get on.

[BelleDeChocolateFluffyBunny]

I think that if you attend a school that encourages you to do well, it doesn't matter what social background you are from. Every school should teach study skills and time management, without these you can not prioritise your work and do well at school/university. It's taken me a while to pick these skills up, I'd never been shown revision techniques for example (apart from a teacher saying that if you had a one hour nap before 5pm then you could stay up until the early hours ). Every child should be encouraged to do their best, I don't think alot of schools even do this.