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.

[claig]

senua, agree it is "poverty of aspiration",
the Tory David Davies came from a poor single parent background on a tough council estate, David Starkey came from a humble background as have countless other successful people

[LimburgseVlaai]

Haven't read whole thread so apologies if this repeats any earlier comments.

In the Netherlands, the school system is very different. In the last year of primary school (age 11) you do tests and have a meeting with a psychologist. On that basis, you go into the vocational stream or into the academic stream. Within each of these there are different levels/school types. After the first year at secondary school('bridging year') you decide whether the initial choice was right.

There are no private schools, and selection is purely on aptitude and academic ability.

As a result, social mobility is much less of an issue. It is very common for children from disadvantaged backgrounds to go through the academic stream. Of course, parental encouragement and peer pressure come into it; but essentially educational attainment is based on intelligence and aptitude.

A very welcome effect of all this is that children who are not 'academic' are able to study to be a mechanic, a cook, a farmer, or whatever from the age of 12, rather than being forced to stay at school to study nonsense subjects. At the same time, university degrees are not devalued as they are in the UK. The idea of having 50% of the population university-educated is just ridiculous IMO - universities should be for the intellectual elite. Provided of course that intellectual ability is the main selection criterion, and not social background.

So to John Humphrys: look at the Dutch example.

[GrimmaTheNome]

Having just read that last post, I don't think I'll bother with what I might have been going to say - Dutch system sounds good!

[OtterInaSkoda]

Hmmm. 11 seems far, far too young to pigeonhole children. I also dislike the notion that university should be for an elite.

[claig]

I personally don't like the sound of the Dutch system. I don't mind the British 11+ system as a form of academic differentiation, because those who fail will still be on an academic path of study. It sounds like the Dutch system separates academic and vocational at far too young an age.

[LimburgseVlaai]

In the Dutch system, you can switch at any time depending on how you are getting on (although it is obviously a bit disruptive to do so - having to get used to a new school etc).

What people often do is to finish their vocational school (4 years), after which they can either do the next level up of vocational education, or go into the academic stream. The other way around works as well: many people do the lowest level of academic stream (again 4 years) and then go to the next level of vocational stream (e.g. to do an electronics qualification or to go into social work).

Hope that explains it a bit better.

[OtterInaSkoda]

What proportion of children are educated privately, LimburgseVlaai?

[claig]

sorry still don't like it, dangerous caste system, suits the elite, too much like "Brave New World"

"Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able ?"

[loungelizard]

I think over the years people's attitudes to education/social position have changed.

Those of David Davis' and David Starkey's generation really did aspire to change their social circumstances much more than people do now.

Surely the 'aspirational working class' doesn't tend to exist in the same way now as it did 30 - 40 years ago?

[OtterInaSkoda]

Those of David Davis' and David Starkey's generation have pulled up the ladder behind them, imo. University is no longer an option if your parents cannot fund you.

[claig]

I think the aspirational working class still exists, what has changed is that the ladder has been cut from under their feet with the poicy to dismantle grammar schools, which is how David Davies, Ken Clarke, David Starkey etc. all got their start. The lowering in value of the qualifications and the huge debts they build up are robbing the working class of a fighting chance

[claig]

it is ironic that the left wing politicians who espouse their solidarity with the working class are the ones who have damaged the chances of children from poor background, and as a consequence have deprived the nation of who knows what talent

[Hekla]

Those of us who are parents and grandparents cannot help but be concerned about the world future generations face and about the preparation and education that we are providing for them. I feel that it is our responsibility to make sure that they are prepared for their futures in the best possible way.

My mother, like many of her generation, had to leave school at a relatively early age to start earning her own living, as a consequence she saw education as a way of ensuring that her children had the ability to earn a better income and a chance to ?improve? and move up the social scale ? to be socially mobile. I often feel that my generation, born around the 1940s, had much of the best of everything: diet, health care, education, pensions, - we have enjoyed rising standards in all these areas. I would like to see future generations have the same benefits. Personnaly I came from a very poor rural working class background and was very lucky to go to a Grammar School, for which I am eternally grateful. My particular school was 500 years old when it was closed, so was started mainly to give education to any who would benefit. We do need to know the history of education and learn from it. We cannot go back. Schools need to cater for the modern world, but I am not sure that the constant flow of reforms, rules, regulations and inspections imposed from the government are the best way forward. 65 years of increasing government initiatives does not seem to have given us a particularly good system - how much longer is state education going to be controlled by people who, on the whole, do not use it and know little about education and/or learning?

As a grandmother, I wish most of all that my grandchildren have the chance to be happy and to be, what used to be called, ?well rounded? individuals.
I want them to be encouraged to have enquiring minds and to enjoy learning.
I hope they will grow to be well mannered, respectful of other people?s views, feelings and property, that they will have self respect, with high levels of self esteem and confidence in their own abilities, without being precocious or pompous. Will they achieve this in the present system, I wonder.

So what do present parents want from education? What do we want education to do for children? Is the present system providing what we want? Is social mobility the be all and end all of state education or even the most important part of education?

Parental choice seems to have become something of a myth.

Why shouldn't parents 'top up' their child's education? Especially if they have a child who needs stretching or feel that their child is missing the chance to achieve in something at school. Parents have the right to be involved in their childrens' growth and learning. Schools seem to leave too little for parents to be responsible for in their childrens learning.

[mathanxiety]

People who really want something more for their children are turning to home ed. People for whom this is not an option try their hardest to move to an area with better schools or fight against the tide of indifference and ridicule in the schools where their children are stuck. It is very, very hard to be in a minority that wants to do well in school. The undertow is very powerful. It takes a huge emotional toll; parents and children alike need a hide of leather to achieve good results in a lot of schools, plus great, sound advice from a college advisor.

I personally think self-selection for different kinds of schools should be a meaningful option for all, which would ensure that most students and parents have bought into the sort of education their children are going to get. Failing that, put some teeth into teachers' and administrators' powers in schools to allow effective classroom control. Small classes are essential and have been proven time and time again to help enormously in underprivileged areas. Schools can't cure all (can cure hardly any, actually) of society's ills, but they should at least be able to provide an environment where teachers can do their jobs and students can learn.

[wahwah]

So allocate schools at random, primary within a mile radius, secondary within a 10 mile radius and abolish private schools and private tutoring. Now watch standards improve when parents realise they can't buy their way out.

[backtolingle]

"faith schools have all been responses to middle-class concerns."

If the Church is to regain any credibility, its leaders need to force its schools to open their doors to all, rather than discriminating according to parents' religion.

An interim step would be to base admission purely on distance.

Those committed Christians who were excluded would educate their children at home.
Those non-Christians who were included could then assess whether Christianity had something to offer them.

[claig]

wahwah,
I don't think that would work. Parents can't make much difference, it is the government that decides the National Curriculum and sets the policy. Parents can shout till they are blue in the face, but they are likely to be ignored. Even if you abolished tutoring, the parents who had the knowledge would secretly help their children at home, keeping one eye out in case the Gestapo caught them. We live in a free country, parents should be allowed to spend their money as they like, whether that be for tennis lessons, piano lessons, French lessons or maths lessons.

[Missouri]

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

Because unfortunately even parents and teachers with the best of intentions struggle to prevail against the overwhelming environmental pressures faced by children living in a disadvantaged environment. In the projects of inner city America black men returning from prison are given a welcome home party where as black men returning with a university degree are shunned. It?s just not cool to succeed; to do so is viewed as disrespectful as it serves to highlight the perceived failures of other less successful members of the community.

Are you benefiting from parental choice in education? N/A

Does the current system put too much responsibility on parents to make the right choices?

Parents are responsible for ensuring their children receive an education suitable to their age ability and aptitude NOT the state. No, there is not too much responsibility put on parents however there is huge pressure placed upon parents to make the right choice, pressure which is unhealthy and unnecessary.

Is it too stressful?
No, not really. I choose to ignore the messages of fear pumped out by our government.

Do you feel you have to top-up your children's education eg home-tutoring, learning an instrument, employing a lawyer?

We?ve gone one step further. We believe the system is so corrupt, so broken, so damaging that we have chosen to exercise our legal rights, withdraw our children from school and educate them ourselves. The teachers did their best but the system in our opinion is not designed to educate children but process them as if on an assembly line. Sure there are a few bad apples, 30% based on Ofsted?s latest report, but that's not bad...is it? We can do a much better job, in fact most parents could. It?s just a shame the Government is trying to undermine parents with Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Family Bill currently before the House.

Are they worthwhile investments, or necessities that cause resentment?

We view it as a worthwhile investment in the lives of our children, so much so we have sacrificed an income.

[wheeler]

my son is 2 and i', just starting to look at ofsted rpts for our local primary schools - does that make me a sharp elbowed m/c parent?! we live in brent in nw london, and i am appalled to discover that by and large the 'best' schools (best ofsted scores) are by and large the faith schools. brent has many catholic, c of e and jewish schools. i do not say this lightly - from my experience, in extremely diverse brent, these schools are segregated schools, largely along racial lines. i have had both a local childminder and other local parents say to me (i am white british) 'you need to get your son baptised (catholic rite) cos there's hardly any white kids in X school (the nearest non catholic school). another nearby school is a jewish boys school and it's clear there are no non-jews attending (a brent school was also the scene of the recent high court case about alleged racial discrim by a jewish school). it's clear to me, as i know many middle class parents who are doing the weekly church attendance pretensing to be catholic/anglican thing, that many faith schools have simply become a particular mechanism for middle class parents to segregate their kids away from 'others'. faith schools may work in other parts of the country but to me it's obvious they are dangerous in a super diverse place like london. they are due to cynical politicians trying to get faith communities' votes. what an appalling result for our children. i'm the only one of my mums group not playing the faith game (i just can't). it's clear to me though that if you are looking at the quwestion of class and education in contemporary britain then the faith schools policy has become a major part of it.

[zazizoma]

Missouri, I loved your post, every word. My homeschooling my dc would be a very very (very) bad scene, so we are still looking at options in the next year or two.

Regarding your N/A to choice, there is not better response possible!

[edam]

"Parental choice" is a big, fat, lie in many areas. Actually you end up with schools choosing children and an awful lot of covert or overt selection. (At least, schools that are in demand for some reason, although they may not be objectively the best schools anyway.)

People who know their way round the system (the middle classes, generally) can scramble for the non-shitty end of the stick by suddenly acquiring religion, by exploiting all methods of appeal or encouraging hobbies that schools want or tutoring, can afford to move into the 'right' catchment... it's the kids who desperately need a break, whose parents didn't go to university and don't know how to play the game who lose out.

Maybe I'm old enough to be suffering from rose tinted glasses, but I think it was far better when I was kid. I went to a CofE junior school because it was the local school, and took everyone, from the doctor's son to the binman's daughter. None of this nonsense about needing a letter from the vicar (although his son was there too).

It was better for all of us, well-off and not so well-off, to mix with each other and learn to rub along, rather than being segregated by religion or race or class.

[Pluto]

It will be interesting to see if John Humphrys comes to Kent as part of his tour. Here we have: the largest LEA in the UK; at least one grammar school in most towns; a significant number of Catholic and a few Anglican "comprehensive" schools, high schools and academies. In spite of all of this I still think we have little choice for our DS who is in Y5 - there are many hoops and hurdles in the secondary schools' admissions criteria in this county.

The 11 plus here is called the Kent Test. The KS2 curriculum does not cover all of the types of questions on the test and not all primary schools prepare children in any way at all for the Kent Test; so those parents who can afford to tutor their DCs to prepare them for the test do so, in the belief that a grammar education will secure their child a better future. It's a generalisation but bright children from poorer families don't get into grammar school because their parents can't afford the tutoring to get them in. It is a disgrace that the LEA continues to set such test, to support middle class aspirations, to determine the ability of children who should have access to a grammar school place - it's more about the ability of parents to pay for a tutor and to get their children to do plenty of practice papers.

It is a myth that class sizes, resources or the quality of teaching at Kent grammar schools is in some way better than other schools in the county. A tour of schools on open day / evening makes this quite evident. Teaching colleagues move between all the different types of schools here for promotion and funding is based on the school roll (if anything I would imagine the grammars here get less funding as their rolls are quite small).

The value added data for the A level results at our nearby Catholic school were better than the grammars. Of course it is more difficult to add value to students already predicted the highest grades - but it always surprises me when results are published to see that there are students at grammar school who don't all pass all their exams at grade C or above; even in core subjects.

The hypocrisy of the admissions system in Kent is very depressing and I am inclined to support the view of Stephen Ball. However, parents have the right to do what they think is best for their child in whatever system is operating where they live, and I understand how a postcode lottery for schools places creates an enormous strain on parents too.

I teach in an Anglican school, we are practicing Catholics and my DS has an 11plus tutor so that we can keep our options open with regard to school choices next year. Whatever we decide I am sure we will feel hypocrites but in fact we're just doing what we can in a bonkers, broken system. If we were able I would want to move to a rural area with one comprehensive school for everyone. I am quite happy to remove the faith my son is being raised in from his education - I think faith should be based primarily on your home, family and church and not your educational experiences. On the other hand I have worked in a number of different schools in the last 20 years and the church schools have been markedly better in terms of exam results, behaviour and the shared aspirations of the school community.

I don't have any strong views about the private system. There are many prestigious private schools in the area but they are so beyond the reach of anyone I know in terms of the fees they command they might as well be on Mars! One thing I do know is that the teachers in my department who have taught in the private sector are no more competent than those who have worked solely in state schools, and I don't think this is really a topic which worries the teaching profession, certainly in the area where I work.

[seeker]

Well said Pluto!

[edam]

Oh, and I'll willingly 'fess up that we moved when ds was a baby because I knew our local schools (in London) were, ahem, 'challenging'. Ran as fast as I could for middle class suburbia with good schools. I'm probably part of the problem, tbh.

[ZephirineDrouhin]

And very well said, Edam.