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.

[seeker]

elvislives - yes, I am opposed to grammar schools. My child goes to one because we live in a grammar school ares so there is no comprehensive for her to go to.

[zazizoma]

What would happen if the exam system were eliminated? The very nature of exams defines the type of education which can be offered through the national curriculum, and is therefore limiting in the type of student that will thrive. I'd say the American system, which is not based on exams, offers better opportunities with a much wider range of educational philosophies within the state system.

What precisely does Stephen Ball mean by parental choice?

[cory]

I am very happy that we do not have grammar schools in our area.

It means that there was less pressure on the children at 11, which was particularly good for my dd who was ill at the time and her best friend whose mum was dying. Both those girls are very able- dd is definitely gifted- but might have been stuck in a comprehensive with no other academic children, simply because they were unable to perform in one exam.

Tbh I wouldn't have like it better if dd had got into the grammar school either: for someone who does find learning and understanding things very easy, I think it is an essential part of education to learn to cope with people who don't.

The lack of grammars also means that my ds, who is a slow developer and possibly not very academic, will still be educated with at least some children who work hard and want to get somewhere.

It's the mix I like, not just a social mix, but a mix of people with different priorities and different ambitions.

And I do not get the impression that either dd's or ds's school are dumbing down or losing grip on discipline.

[EffiePerine]

not sure I can add anything to Custardo's excellent summary of the real world of secondary education, but...

I don't see why it should be so stressful. My (working class) parents didn't push me ever, and certaintly didn't pay out for private tutoring, but I went to the local grammar (14+ not 11+) and then to a good university because I wanted to. Had I stayed at the local secondary school I would have received a bloody good education as well - the teachers at the secondary were actually better at their job cos they had to deal with all children, not just the brightest. But if you have a curriculum where the basics aren't even attempted, where 'General Studies' is touted as a proper A level, where 'A' level English means teaching a few chapters of a book then watching the film, what hope do kids have?

It's not only the education system, this idea that we have to ensure all children ca. pass a GCSE (never mind whether it teaches them anything), it's also about how we encourage learning. No-one I knew at school was privately tutored, and a good proportion were from solid middle class backgrounds. If you wanted to go beyond the syllabus you DID IT YOURSELF. You went to the library, you rootled about in the book cupboard for something more interesting than the set text, you did S level... why do we as parents feel we have to guide our children's education so much now? Do we not trust them to work it out for themselves? I can't help thinking that university tutors are tearing their hair out at excellent candidates with great exam scores who have had all their intellectual curiosity stamped out of them.

But then my kids are still pre-school age, I;m sure when it comes to it I'll be paying the system with the best of them. Cos we're in a grammar school area with the 11+, which is not taught at primary school. We may not pay for a tutor, but I'm sure I'll be going through test papers and the like .

[CalpurnicaTate]

Choices bah !

These were ours :

local comp - pass rate 27 % many children enter at level 2 and have behavioural problems. While I was looking around a teacher took me aside and told me not to send my dd there "under any circumstances".

another local comp - pass rate 30 % much larger and even more behaviour issues.

grammar - the best in the country no catchment very hard to get in

faith school - pass rate 70 % requires a letter from your church.

private - the only bursery offered is for people earning less than 20k a year and then "they may offer you up to 50%" the fees are basic 17k - how is that possible. We tried anyway dd got the highest mark in the year and was only offered a "prize" which was a book from the school. Charitable status what a joke.

What would you do ? The result is that parents around here are extrememly angry and stressed. We are both state educated and did extremely well and manage stressful careers. However, this has made mince meat of us and our child.

[Bramshott]

I think to a certain extent this whole "choice" idea has backfired, with people travelling miles to a particular school because they have marginally better decor and more laptops etc. IMHO, school is an important community institution, and works best when everyone in the community feels themselves to be a part of it, and supports their local school.

[NorkyButNice]

DS is only 2 so secondary school is a way off for us yet, but it's already causing me worries about what path we'll go down when the time comes.

My parents chose to send me and my siblings to a private school over an hour's commute away in order to give us the best education they could find - the school still consistently comes in the top 30 schools in the country in the league tables. We weren't financially well off - we all had assisted places and were the "poor" kids who lived in the not-so-nice area and bought our uniform in the end of term sales.

I hated living so far from friends and always feeling different to the other kids, so we've decided to move to an area with good state schools and to give DS a decent local education.

However, I'm already feeling guilt (and being put under pressure from the grandparents) because we could easily afford to pay for private school, and there is a good one just 10 minutes walk away from the new house. The thought of sending DS to an "average" school without all the facilities I benefited from makes me very uneasy, even though I know that there are negatives to not using the local state school.

I just don't know what we'll do when the time comes - probably do state for primary then consider private for secondary to be honest. Although will he already be at a disadvantage by then?

[120]

parents should be paid for home schooling

[TheApprentice]

I'm a teacher(primary), and I think that Custardo talks a lot of sense. Our current education system does the less academic children no service at all.

As to why education does not lessen gap between poorest and wealthiest backgrounds - anyone who has taught as I have in very deprived areas will know the answer to this one. Education is highly unlikely to bridge gaps without parental support. If you are a 5 year old with parents who are very poor, with few prospects to aspire to, perhaps chronically depressed as a result, maybe on drugs etc etc, then chances are your parents are too exhausted/down/drugged out to have the energy to help you with your reading and homework or to play games with you or even to ensure you get to school regularly and punctually. Some people's situations are so dire that they can only think about survival - their child's education cannot be their first priority. So of course these children are massively disadvantaged even before they start school. I do not say this in a judgemental way (and of course there a plenty of less well off people who manage to support their children wonderfully) - some people live incredibly hard lives, there before the grace of God go I etc etc, but it is very naive to suggest that any amount of good schooling (while of course it can help) will ever bridge the gap for those children from the most deprived backgrounds.

[ahundredtimes]

Reading this thread, it makes me think that this illusion of 'choice' has in fact resulted in competition - rather than choice. It's like an anxious free market economy out there - and people are left behind. Education is doing the opposite of what it should do - it should liberate people, but in fact it looks like children are left behind at the earliest opportunity as 'choice' has created greater divisions, and the middle classes have the strangle hold on the 'good' schools. I think faith schools etc do indeed reflect middle class desires - in much the same way as private schools used to and do. If you're a bright child from a disadvantaged background and you are consigned to a not good school at 11, then your opportunity for social mobility is severely curtailed isn't it? Especially as - now it's a competition - the equivalent mc child is in a 'better' school. I live in a very middle class area, and there are still 'good' secondaries and 'bad' ones - which seem to be by definition, 'middle class ones' and not mc ones.

How can social mobility exist under such a system? It can't. Something happened whereby education became a commodity to be bargained for, house moved for, tutored for - it became a competition, and it shouldn't be, because the middle class parent - with all their advantages - are always going to be the first out the blocks, even though all interested parents want a 'good' education for their child.

[gramercy]

Lots of good points on this thread.

I'm with Custardo - give every child a chance in the first place, and this means demanding that they learn to read and write. As a school governor I was going through the primary school's 3-year plan. Improving literacy/numeracy were loitering down the bottom of the page, with fun! healthy eating, philosophy for kids! (not my exlamation marks) heading the list. I practically had the Head by the throat and said that if you polled every single parent in the land, not one would come up with "fun!" as the reason they send their dcs to school. Fun is a great by-product, but as Custardo said, all those hours, weeks, years at school and children emerge illiterate... aaaggghhh.

I also agree about the competition angle. When I passed the 11+ there was no tutoring - you just took three papers (all the children sat the exams) and some passed. In the 1930s my mother, who was from a very poor home and had six siblings, received a full scholarship to a public school. She wouldn't have stood a chance today, as she would have been up against children who had been coached from the age of 3 weeks.

[CalpurnicaTate]

I totally agree with gramercy and Custardo. Our primary school spends a gread deal of the day teaching my kids about healthy eating, yoga, studying the rainforest. This is all very nice but most of them cannot read yet. They should be reading and doing maths the rest will follow. Once they can read really well and have developed a love of books they will learn the rest anyway.

[dreamingofsun]

Generally the schools in rural dorset are good. Though it does depend largely on the head teacher - we had one due for retirement and she was useless. Its a shame they can't expand the grammar schools here as they seem to benefit the brighter children. Even here, you can only 'choose' a good school if you in the catchment area - otherwise there aren't enough places. I think that lack of parental ambition has a lot to do with things. I notice that where parents break up the children are often left to their own devices and turn to alcohol; staying up late etc. I'm fed up with being descriminated against though - my son's friends get 30 per week to stay at school from the government and free bus fares - whilst we will have to pay despite the fact that we are in the catchment area. I think apprentice schemes are a good idea - some people just aren't accademic, so whats the point of trying to push them down this route when they would benefit more from say a plumbing course?

[dreamingofsun]

it would be interesting to see the social backgrounds of children at our local grammar school. a lot of my son's friends sound as if they are from quite poor backgrounds. a lot of them get the 30 a week from the government. i think its lack of parental ambition rather than their economic situation that influences things where i live. though i know there are some areas where the schools aren't great - but i think this is down to poor head teachers in some cases - my impression is that many schools improve once the head is changed - our local one went from satsifactory to outstanding in just a couple of years.

[Remotew]

Twinset, just come back to this and was pleased to read your post of 23.52 last night. Good to know that your school can compete with the grammar in your area and the alternative isn't the 'secondary modern'/'sink school' which is often the impression I get. As I say I don't have any experience of how a two tier system works in this day and age.

Belle, I never for once thought you were in school in the bad old days of the emerging comp system that was the 70's. Feel bad for your DS that things haven't improved since moving school.

I think we are lucky with DD's school. I know it isn't perfect and expect that there are pupils that don't want to learn but they are in the minority. Top sets seem reasonably well behaved most of the time but still have some disruptions. Can honestly say that we haven't experienced any bullying and DD has got to year 11. She keeps herself to herself but even I expected some problems. I experienced enough of it in the 70's and couldn't wait to get out at the first opportunity.

[Litchick]

I probably spend far too much time thinking about this issue than is healthy, but I was brought up on a sink estate.Like everyone around me, I was 'disadvantaged'. No-one in my family had ever been schooled past 16. All my peers from the estate left at 16.Many remain on the estate still.

I, however, ended up reading law at university. I worked in London, I travelled the world, I now make my living as a writer.

I guess you could say I am the poster girl for social mobility.

However, I really do not believe that school bridged that gap for me. Yes, they were a resource that I could use, and unlike my peers I did choose to.
But what I had that made the difference was support at home.
Both my parents, although completley uneducated themselves, wanted me to escape the life they had lived.
From an early age they spoke about university only in positive terms. We had books in the house (unlike the majority of my friends) which we discussed. We read the papers.

My dreams of entering politics, or becoming a lawyer, or a writer were never sniffed at. They were actively encouraged.

School, can never, I fear, do any of that for a child.

[Remotew]

Litchick, I am hoping that the support and encouragement I have given DD will have similar results. Think I have done the groundwork. I didn't go to uni but studied at night school in my 20's. I wasn't encouraged to even try and sit A levels at 18. University was for other people. Do hope DD goes.

[Builde]

In many areas the school system works very well. Where I grew up, all the state schools were considered good so choice wasn't essential. (and there weren't any local private schools)

However, we didn't really have any choice because - being a very rural area - if you didn't go to your nearest school you would have to go to one 20 miles away.

It seemed that - by having no realistic choices - parents went with their local school and then supported it.

[thedollyridesout]

"Why is it that education cannot close the attainment gap that exists between children from the poorest and wealthiest backgrounds?"

Education can close the gap when it is coupled with a degree of social engineering - you know, take the poor kid out of the mire and show them what there is to aspire to.

More social mixing in and out of our schools is what is required if social mobility is to improve.

I would go as far as to say that a child from a mono social (i.e not a middle class kid in sight) school with 10 good GCSEs will still end up working in Tesco.

[Litchick]

thedolly - you have hit upon another issue which also exercises me greatly.

I don't send my children to the local school, which could no doubt well do with more middle-class children in attendence, to improve standards. I do feel that I am not fullfilling my social responsibility in that regard.

I choose, selfishly, to put my own children first and send them to a school I consider better.

[loungelizard]

I think there is a terrible combination these days of children being give both false educational aspirations (eg everyone should go to university)on the one hand and a lack of aspiration on the other hand (dumbing down of exams, making everything easier so no-one fails).

This coupled with the illusion of 'choice' and the competition between schools (which seem to be run as businesses rather than educational establishments)has made a complete two tier system with the 'haves' and 'have nots' and the private sector increasing its stranglehold on the best places at the best universities as parents with enough money opt out of the state system.

True, there are many, many good state schools but the sad fact remains that a decent education is becoming the preserve of only those who can afford to pay for it, either by using the private sector or by living in an affluent area.

[claig]

Litchick,
I agree that home support is great and very useful. But I don't agree that school can never take its place and achieve the same effect. There are many illiterate parents, parents who are unknowledgeable and some parents who just don't care. It is the purpose of the school to open the eyes of their children to the beauties of culture.
At home most of thes kids would never have heard about Moliere, but at good schools they will be introduced to his works and those of other great contributors to culture.
These children will then develop in ways that would have been impossible if they had depended on home support.

[Litchick]

Well all I can say, is that my peers were exposed at school to exactly the same things as me.
Yet I can't recall any of them going to uni. My Mum says she remembers one other family.

And it remains the case that despite huge investment in education,and genuine will on their part, the governemnt has not been able to bridge the gap for certain swathes of the population.

I believe that it cannot do so where parents are unsupportive. And even in those cases where they are supportive, it remains difficult to fight against the tide of your peers.

[claig]

I agree they have definitely failed. I think they have dumbed down so many subjects that they have taken the soul out of them. GCSE IT could be a very interesting subject, but when I looked at the syllabus and the standards required, my heart sank. How can they expect children to get their teeth into it when they offer such a bland palette.

[senua]

"I agree that home support is great and very useful. But I don't agree that school can never take its place and achieve the same effect ... It is the purpose of the school to open the eyes of their children to the beauties of culture."

But, conversely, in addition to praising the positive schools should also be able to condemn the negative. They should have more fredom to deal effectively with troublemakers. As others have said, let teachers get on with teaching and stop asking them to do the job of social services / the police (but without their powers).