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.

upandrunning - I don't want any child left behind, but the state cannot take the place of good parenting.
Schools cannot bridge the gap.
They can't be all things to all children. They can teach the basics much better than they currently do - agreed - but those children with interested, engaged parents will always have the advantage.
My parents were very poor, completely uneducated and isolated, but they gave me the advantage. I can't see how any school could have replicated that amount of time and energy.

It is very sad, but I just can't see a way around it.

StillSquiffy has said what I would have wished to say. While education is the victim if the class system I see the education system as reinforcing it. There is little pressure for change from teachers.

Governments do not generally make sweeping changes. But if you want to tinker with the system to improve it my suggestions are:-

1. More grammar schools. They did help social mobility.

1. Require all schoolchildren to do compulsory community service. This brings those from a more privileged background into contact with the less fortunate. It begins to teach them to work together and to put something back into their community. We also need to bring the honours system back to a point where it recognised those who help others not simply donors to political parties and sports people.

1. If fee-paying schools are allowed to continue only give tax breaks to those who do promote involvement with their local community. This would not be the current feeble attempts but, for example, doing DofE will pupils from other schools or working with them in things like the youth parliament. The school would need to show that their pupils were mixing with other children to qualify. Playing sports matches against them would not count.

1. More discipline in schools. Those who do not want to work are currently allowed to spoil the education of those who do. Parents who can will opt of poorly disciplined schools.

As someone from an 1st generation immigrant working class family I would say innate ability, parents who valued/supported education, exposure to a peer group who came from educated families and being taught by teachers who were specialist in their subjects were the main reasons why I succeeded in going to university and ended up in a profession.

I think the current education system will ensure less social mobility then when I went to school. Nowadays mainly due to parental choice, schools are so polarised that a clever but poor child will have very little chance of having the same peer group or access to specialist teachers as I did in secondary school. Indeed when I look at my old school it has a 26% pass at GCSE and our old rival school up the road has a 80% pass. When I took my Olevels and Alevels in the 80's, pre parental choice the pass/grades rates were very similar for both schools. I also know of parents who use every tactic to get their dc into the rival school and the irony of this is the rival school use to be the secondary modern and my old school was the grammar!

Agree with Litchick - the onus to educate children IS on the parents. Parents are legally and morally responsible for their childrens education.

The fact that most parents choose to discharge a part of that duty to a school doesn't make the school responsible for that child's education.

I have something in my head, but its not properly thought out yet and it feels a bit like the way I'm saying it is critical of schools and parents who choose them, when it really isn't meant to be.

I don't see the problems belonging to individual schools but to the education system. I don't think that you can take the national curriculum and say we can make all children learn these things - it is too broad for everyone as a whole and yet doesn't offer enough choice for individuals. I think that trying to offer a broad and balanced curriculum to all children means that if school=education then the majority of children aren't going to be offered an education that is suitable for their age, ability and aptitude.

So if schools are only a PART of education, should they be trying to meet as many needs as they do now? Or should they be teaching the basics and the government looking for a way to support families who can't offer the other parts outside of schools? So that those children aren't left behind, but time in school isn't wasted by trying to give all children the same things - all children don't NEED the same things.

I have a boy with SLD (dyslexia) but he also has a tested IQ which puts in him the top 2 percent of the population. Compound this with us living in an area where the catchment area for the best performing schools is miniscule (less than half a mile - and the house prices, in that catchment area consequently, out of reach to me (as a non-graduate from a modest background)
and my ds already feels at the age of 12 that he is doomed
Doomed to not get good grades (he is particularly gifted at science)because his struggling comp has no resources to help him. Doomed to not get to university because god help us, we can't afford to send him but we are not eligible for any help. but that is irrelevant, because unless he gets some help and support from the school - we're only talking about someone to scribe for him FGS!) he will not pass any exams.
Doomed by virtue of not being poor enough or rich enough.
I now feel terrible and guilt-wracked because maybe if I had gone to uni and got a degree, maybe I'd be earning enough for all this not to matter.

anastaisia, what about parents who are illiterate, or parents who themeselves have learning difficulties? Is it too much for them to hope, that in civilised developed country, that the schools may be able to help their children? Is it right to make them sign contracts that they can't even read?

MollyRoger, it is scandalous that anybody as gifted as your son is not awarded extra special help. Gifted young footballers are spotted and given special treatment, but gifted children like your son are not helped. What a waste for the country as a whole, who knows what your son may be capable of?

Upandrunning/ Claig,

I have an old friend who is incapable of supporting her dc's education (she has severe dyslexia and emotional problems). Her children are at an excellent primary and it is because most of the other parents there do support their own dc's, that the school are in a position to provide the extra support my friend's dc's need.

Of course our education system could always do with more money. But, as that is not likely to happen in the near future imo resources should be targetted on those in real need.

anastasia - x posted - think I'm trying to say what you're trying to say !!

I'm sorry jackstarbright, I disagree with you. It is a basic right in a country as rich as ours that every child should receive a top quality education in school. If there are not enough resources in the schools currently, then extra money needs to be provided.

Governments have lots of our money that they choose to spend on wasteful projects (millenium dome and a myriad of other follies). They blather on about "education, education, education" to fool the suckers and get their votes, but then they short-change us, wave the "contract" in our faces and tell us that its our problem that our children are falling behind.

I think there's a bit of a conundrum in that by social mobility, we mean that we'd like children to do better than their parents.

Consequently one is saying, look at your parents, they are poor/struggling/uneducated (or even middle-of-the-road, slightly educated) and you should spurn their lifestyle and make every effort and grasp every opportunity to do better.

Now, as others have rightly pointed out, it's all now "home-school contracts" and "working together" etc etc. Clearly this is just never going to work for many children. There are of course great numbers of parents, particularly of immigrant families, who are desperate to see their dcs prosper, but many people couldn't care less and find it insulting that their life is deemed unsatisfactory.

Yesterday I was helping in the school library. One girl in Year 3 (7 or 8 years old) was queueing up to change her book. She said to me "My mum said I wasn't to bring any more books home." "Oh, why?" says I. "She can't be bothered to read them and says she's got better things to do."

upandrunning/claig,

Just so you are clear on the law I've provided for you
Education Act 1996
1996 CHAPTER 56
Compulsory education

7 Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age

The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable?
(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

Parents are RESPONSIBLE for ensuring their children receive and education. Just because most people chose to send their children to school does not negate their responsibilities. However there is hope for you and people who believe as you do. Currently the Government is reviewing legislation which will transfer these rights from the parents to the state. Don?t worry; if Labour are re-elected parents will be increasingly marginalised.

Ofsted has even called for parents and all relatives to be CRB checked because parents can't be trusted. This is what will happen if you wish away your rights.

And claig you should really check out the Children, Schools and Families Bill if you are concerned about parental contracts? it?s all in there and it?s not good.

I however do not believe the state should decide what is best for my child. I believe that is the parent?s domain.

Missouri, I support home education if the parents want it. I am uneasy with the state having too many rights. I can see your worries and I agree with them. All I am saying is parents didn't sign these contracts 30 years ago, why now? We deserve a decent education system, it should not be necessary for parents to have to do half the job themselves when they are sending their children to get a schooling.

maybe it is all in these bills as you say. That's something I wasn't aware of. I just find it a bit strange

Litchick I was snippy earlier, I'm sorry, I don't know why I was.

"Agree with Litchick - the onus to educate children IS on the parents. Parents are legally and morally responsible for their childrens education."

You know what, it's all very well folding your arms and saying this. But we live in the real world where thousands and thousands of parents don't. And their children will be a drain on your children unless this is stopped. It's not a case of "well I support mine so it's up to you to support yours".

It's in ALL our interest that schools do their duty with the 3Rs, do not leave it to parents, do not insist that parents supervise homework, do not fail to listen to children read, and do not allow 115,000 primary school age children to move on with a learning level two years behind the average as happened last summer. And if that means abandoning Roman Day and all its hellish partners in dress up crime then boo hoo I don't care and neither should anyone else.

Smaller class sizes, more extra curricula activites, options to drop off early and pick up late on the school site - in short, if everyone had access to a state school system that looked more like the private school system, I think that would be a start.

In the private sector, kids have access to a wealth of opportunities on site - and everyone joins in. School and after school activities take up loads of time during term time, and there are few opportunities for going and hanging around McDonalds. Doing well, in terms of attainment and effort, is regarded by the kids as cool - it's completely the opposite in most state schools.

In the state sector, I've been told on multiple occasions, "well, we do what we can but we've got 30 kids to teach" - that's just not good enough. I feel sorry for teachers who have massive classes to herd through the system - we desperately need more cash per child injected into each school.

No need to apologise, this is important, I think, to the country as a whole and we will have different ideas of course.

Anyway you have made me laugh out loud about Roman day

I'm going to really have a good look at what everyone's written later.

Not that I think abandoning Roman Day will solve all our problems of course: that just represents the problems, if you see what I mean.

Missouri,
I must admit I do hate wading through this legalese, it tends to send me to sleep. Looking at what you have quoted, it seems that the legal obligation is to send the child to a school (or to provide a similar standard of education otherwise e.g. home-schooling etc.).

It seems we can still count ourselves fortunate that it is not yet the law that we also have to read to our children at home. Doubtless we can look forward to this law in an upcoming bill.

i'm coming to this debate late, but really interested in the parents' role in education. in an ideal world of course, school would only be part of a child's education, one where they learn in a more formal setting, and it would complement what they learn from their parents, families, friends and by themselves. and i hope to create that sort of 24-7 'learning' environment for my DS regardless of his true academic ability. but of course many kids don't have the advantage of interested parents, so maybe we should be saying as a society that until the time all parents are interested and supportive then maybe we should expect schools to shoulder all of the burden so that no chid is disadvantaged (simplistic argument i know!).

i don't think it's a question of parents not being able to help due to lack of education themselves, it's all about willing. my mum left school at 15 with no formal qualifications, and i'd say only basic literacy and numeracy skills. but she read to us every day, she did loads of activities with us, and she fostered a love of learning. and my DB and i have done very well academically as a result. and interestingly her own reading and numeracy skills improved alongside us - she now loves reading for pleasure - so that home environment helped her too. as litchick says if parents foster that learning environment then a child is enabled to achieve great things regardless of their background.

a less positive example:

i was in a shop the other day and overheard two grandparents talking about their DGS while stood in front of the books.

GF: shall we get GS a book? i think he'd like that one.
GM: no, he's too interested in books already. if he carries on like this he's going to stand out at school. he shouldn't start school so far ahead. i don't think we should be encouraging him by buying more books
GF: yeah, you're probably right

i felt so so sad for that little boy - a disinterested family would be better than the one he has. at least if they were disinterested, he'd just be able to get on with it with his school's help. As it is, he has a family that is actively discouraging his love of learning for fear he may stand out from the crowd and he's not even started school yet no amount of better schooling can change that environment for him.

To go back to the OP,

What do people think about Prof David Woods and his claim that (London) parents move there dc's from state primary to private secondary without even bothering to look round their local comprehensive. This is so not my experience in my tiny corner of London - but round here a school open day a bit of a 'social gathering' . We might be a tad obsessive and with a private secondary education costing nearly £100k per child a tad tight too!

megonthemoon,
"i don't think it's a question of parents not being able to help due to lack of education themselves, it's all about willing."

I am fortunate that I know enough to be able to tutor my son for the 11+. I read 11+ forums and I see some remarkable children on there, asking for advice on how to solve various 11+ problems. One child was really keen and asked lots of questions. Another jealous child posted a comment saying "can't you just ask your parents?", and the keen child said "no they don't know the answers" followed by a sad emoticon. Thank God that there are great children like that, who battle against all the odds, they are the most deserving children. Schools have to be there to help these children, because their parents cannot do it.

megonthemoon, an very interesting anecdote and yes, very sad that the GPs weren't able to respect their grandson's interests.

I know we've moved on a bit from my morning post, but I'd like to clarify that creativity, as I intended it to mean, has nothing to do with pasting pasta, or even real art, but with originality of thinking.

And exams are superfluous to a commitment to literacy and numeracy.

The fact that the national curriculum is based around exams is a fundamental problem with the current education system. If these were eliminated, then a fresh approach toward university admissions and qualifications would be required, educators could focus on real results rather than statistical results, and young people can be encouraged to develop their individual interests into a vocation.

I'm also in the camp that believes parents are responsible for their children in all aspects of their care and development, which does leave the question of how should a forward-thinking society address situations where parents abdicate this responsibility, without infringing on the rights of those who do not.

~upandrunning
No folding of arms and just saying that here. As a home educator I'm not asking the government to support my child in or out of school, I'm comfortable with doing so myself.

But I think 'is school the right place to support children who don't get support from their parents?' is a valid question.

Because I'm not sure that what those childred miss out on is really about the academic side of school but perhaps about the life and horizon broadening side of education anyway. Its obvious that for many children school really isn't working, for whatever reasons. So maybe the answer will never be just to improve school or to tweak the curriculum or to start them even earlier and make them stay later. Maybe the answer is that these children need an intervention that isn't school at all.

Very interesting discussion.

I think that one of the main problems is that the government (and many other people) seem to believe that all children ought to be moving upwards in terms of greater numbers going to university, gaining more academic qualifications etc. I think the emphasis is all wrong, and that this belief undervalues people who may never be academically brilliant, but have other skills which could be nurtured.

I do believe first of all that all children should learn the basics, such as reading, writing and maths, as well as having the opportunity for physical exercise in their school day.

What I think would be really great would be a comprehensive system with true flexibility. I.e. one where children were put into ability groups for all subjects, but were assessed regularly with the option of moving into a different group. In this way children who were not the most able when they started school, but who worked hard and did well would not be disadvantaged.

I also think there should be far more flexibility with the types of subjects/qualifications available. It strikes me that in most comprehensive schools most subjects offered are either the traditional academic ones, or the ones that people refer to as "soft options" e.g. media studies. There seem to be few courses available to secondary age children which would really suit those who are not academically gifted but are really good in a practical way. And I think that if children choose to do course which are more practical, it should not be seen as "less good" than those who choose academic options.

I think that this flexibility should also extend to higher education - so instead of trying to push as many people as possible through university, there should be more options (such as polytechnic type courses and aprenticeships) where students can follow a course that is really suited to their particular strengths.

I also think that fees for higher education should be paid for by the LEA as used to be the case. When I went to university I knew several students who were from poorer backgrounds. They were there because they were bright, and had supportive parents. But also because the LEA paid the tuition fees and a large part of their grant. I think those students would probably not go to university these days, as their parents couldn't have afforded the fees, and would have been unwilling to take out a loan for such a large amount of money.

With respect to the questions put in the OP, I feel that in many places there is no choice. I am lucky in that we live in catchment areas for reasonably good state schools (both primary and secondary), but they are always oversubscribed. If we lived in the catchment for poorer schools we would never get in to one of the better ones. The only choice is to move house (not an option for many people, as houses cost more in these areas, partly just because they are in a good catchment area!)

I feel that although our local primary school is good, we still do have to top up with anything "extra" such as music lessons etc - you just don't get those sort of things in any great quantity at a state school. Our son (aged 9) loves cricket, and we have taken him to some indoor training for that for the last 2 or 3 years. He also joined the local cricket club last summer and played in their under 9s team which he loved. He has recently been selected for the county under 10s squad, and we went to the first training session this week. It was very noticeable that every parent I spoke to said their child went to a private school - ds was the only one to go to a state primary. When I was chatting to one of the mums, she told me how much cricket her son plays at school - they are out playing nearly every day (from yr 3) and have proper teams and all the facilities. Whereas ds gets nothing at his school. In our case I think it has been worth it to take our ds for cricket training - but we couldn't have afforded to send him to a privates school.