State school kids do better at university

[clemetteattlee]

here

Xenia, I agree one hundred per cent that state schools should look to private schools to find out what they do so well. It's ludicrous that our private schools are up with the best in the world, and our state schools, um, aren't. I was talking to a friend today whose child is in Y2 at an Ofsted-'outstanding' primary (my daughter is also in Y2, but at a non-selective independent school). We were both very struck by the differing expectations of the two schools. Why should they be so different?

FWIW, I'm not convinced by the 'clever children with engaged parents will flourish in any school' thing that always gets trotted out. I was a very, very clever child, and - possibly as a result of this - was prone to fool around and do as little work as possible. My parents were interested and engaged, but that didn't make much difference to me educationally. However, going to an excellent, academically selective school did focus my mind in a way that a big comprehensive wouldn't have done. I fear I'd have been a severe pain in the bum if I'd gone to the latter. As Xenia says, I think the peer group made a huge difference too.

I don't recognise this world of people getting good jobs because they have the right accent. Nowadays it is talent that counts. Maybe the legal profession is different, maybe it is all social graces and accents there. Socialist millionaires like former Goldman Sachs employee and former chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies, and Greg Dyke don't speak too posh.

Alan Sugar doesn't employ people on 'The Apprentice' because they have the right accent. He can see through flannel and only employs smart cookies.

'SanctiMoanyArse, universities do allow state pupils with lower grades than private school students - they are already discriminating in favour of state school students. The issue is that the balance, from the stats in this report, has clearly swung too far

that's not what I said at all

I suggested a great many things that could be done that would be better than discrimination either way so that when it came to grades time there was a better chance of them ebing equal

And in particular proper selection assessments and stratified support for promising students in the pre- A Level phase

Can we acknowledge SOME state schools are good

Some indie schools are not

If the less well eprforming schools in each sector learn from the best in both then that's win-win, of course. But why shouldn't a low eprforming indoe elarn from our well performing state as much as anything?

But yes, there are things Indie schools teach that states don't; in my degree field I have the academics and drive but could have benefitted hugely from a classics input that many of my Indie educated friends received, absolutely: Latin would have been amazing as well. I scrabbled by without but it would have been nicer to sail through instead! (I've side stepped field now anyway).

And yes Xenia I agree about teens but the values aprents have matter and they stick. I am sure it was my mother's beelif in education that means from a council estate start we all have a HND or higher. A lot of a child is establilshed before they hit the teen stage, and as you could tell who in my school would be having sex by twelve from your knowledge of them and their family at 10, I suspect so with education also.
Maybe not always who will study at 18 but hey, one day. When somebody has got past the hormones and is ready.

Claig, if you look at the BBC, in particular their journos and presenters, they practically all went to private school.

For those who are anxious about their child being educated among other clever, aspirational children, maybe you don't realise that good state schools set by ability. If your children are bright, they will be taught in classes with other, clever children. eg my all the pupils in my dc's top set Maths are predicted A*/A grades (and this set always achieve them), the next couple of sets below will be A/B etc. Same for each subject, apart from compulsory PE (which isn't examined) and Citizenship, which is a bit of a 'filler' subject. So, if you have bright children, I can't see the problem.

I expect Xenia will turn round now and say that her local state school teaches mixed ability right the way to Year 11.... in which case she should have used some of her intelligence and high income to buy herself into a better area to live. Saves a fortune on school fees

Our state school ahve setted since year 3 absolutely. And theya re good at attaching prestige to other things- ds1 may not be academic (he's bright but struggles in a school environment- SN) but his self esteem escalated hugely when he was the only child picked to represent the school in all teh athletic tournaments this year; ds3 was chosen to represent the class at the Eisteddfood (he did the Witch speech from macbeth) and although he only came second ('only', LOL) his confidence tied in with him finally learning to write (dyspraxia: gets excellent grades verbally but struggled to write it, a year ago they said he woudln't write and now he has been taken off SEN register)

The new Head is a bit unidirectional (faith, faith, faith) but generally the school has a strong focus on celebrating achievement and developing individual talents and I think that works.

We had sets at our school. It was still shit though.

Totally agree about the attaching prestige aspect...that's a relatively recent thing in some state schools, but AFAIK (and I'm a Deputy Head so know a fair few schools) it's pretty common for state schools to have Prize Givings, traditional Sports Days, Public Speaking Competitions, full list of Sports fixtures (my state school regularly plays sport against the Privates too!) oh and blazers and ties have made a big comeback in recent years, and many schools have reverted to them rather than sweatshirts.

jonicomelately, I agree that private schools are very good schools on the whole, which is why many socialist hypocrites in parliament can't wait to sign their kids up for them. A lot of the BBC presenters have had elocution lessons, but I think this is dying out and they are now more politically correct and are going for regional accents. I bet that most of them went to Oxbridge, just like the majority of Guardian journalists. But at least that is presumably to do with intelligence rather than accent.

We've ahd ties since reception although they ahve added polo shirts as an option recently 9still with a tie though). But ours thinks it is Indie I think: smart uniforms, strict rules, founder's day, team photographs and most kids elarning an instrument (even if the only one ds2 could get to grips with was drumming- eek )

They did also attend briefly a bog satndard state before we moved and whilst the add ons weren't tehre (no music / team sports etc) it was a successful and happy school and it seemed to boil down to a strong leader, a Head who was fiercely rpoud of his school, high aiming but approachable. We lost ours last year and that worries me enough that ds4 may well go elsewhere.

The fact a lot of them went to Oxbridge and then went to work for the BBC is because they had the benefit of a private education. All children should have these opportunities. The first and most obvious step is for the state to look at what works in the private sector and adopt the same. Unfortunately the liberal elite won't do this despite the fact they all clamour to get their kids into goods schools or pay for private tuition.

agree with you jonicomelately. They need to look at what works and what is successful and replicate it. I'm beginning to think that the liberal elite do it on purpose. They try to deny the poor and middle classes the chance to go to grammar schools, whilst sending their own kids to fee-paying schools.

Schools do this already.

I am a deputy head at a state school, we regularly visit independent schools, outstanding state comps and state grammars to see what we can learn. In turn they visit us.

Why on earth doesn't somebody find out how a church-based Saturday school in a deprived borough of London does it? The Independent doesn't even give them a mention in their article and the BBC only has one line at the end of the article about them. Why isn't the person running this Education Minister or at least an OBE?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/8542694.stm

no matter how unpalatable the things Xenia says, the sad truth is that independent schooled children are way way over represented in numbers at Universities, in the best paid jobs, in the professions, in the law and policy making jobs, in the media, in academia and in the arts.

So the sad fact of the matter is that state schooled pupils are statistically underperforming. No amount of breast beating and personal stories will change that.

Instead of constantly discussing what is wrong with independent education, I'd perfer to ask what it does right.
What is it about these pupils that makes them over achieve statistically?

Ohterwise the status quo remains.

Litchick (thread hujack, sorry)
How is the young boy who was put on Ritalin now? Is he back to his normal self?

Do you know Claig - he's much more himself. Not as out there as before, but his personality has come back. Still oddly compliant though ( these things being relative lol).

We are going to have him for a week at the end of August so his parents can go on holiday with their other NT child. His Mum is very very nervous about leaving him for that lenghth of time, but the Dad has really pushed her. They all need the break tbh.

Great to hear that his personality has come back. He sounds like a lovely lively bouncy chap. I admire you for the great thing you do in looking after him and giving his family a break. I hope you have a great time when he comes to stay for a week

Yes, Tim nice but dim might get foot in the door in a few places (but not most).

However the education many private school pupils receive is better so Bill (private school, not dim) does better than Kevin who went to a comp and even Branson who didn't do well at school was at a private school. You find children from private schools who "fail" often have other aspects of the education they can later use., In fact my children's father a teacher in both sectors used to say that in some ways the children who were not so bright tin the private schools he was in were the most benefited by the schools because they could be taught in very small classes and helped to perform to the best of their ability and work around whatever problems they have.

If you can't afford to pay for a good private school there's no point in anyone beating themselves up about it although you could help the cause of women by getting a well paid job that pays school fees (we need many more women doing that to try to right the balance with men) but do look to the private sector.

I think I mentioned a few things above like ensure the children get 2 grade 8s in music, have them running for the county, get their D of E awards, ensure they have a wide range of hobbies, get them useful work experience, ensure they know how to write proper English, spell, pick them up if they muddle it's and its, choose for them proper GCSE subjects (look at the better private schools' lists of A levels and GCSEs and ensure they do 8 core traditional GCSEs, ensure they are with children who will be going to the best universities not the local poly), teach them the national anthem, take them on trips.

What could the state sector learn from the private? I think some state schools do have similar things that seem to work already like houses and cups and high expectations. Avoiding socialist teachers is a big big issue. It's always been so. Teachers hvae always been fairly badly paid for their expertise so they tend to be left wing. YOu can avoid that to an extent in a fee paying school as the real left ones wouldn't set foot in it but it's a problem at some state schools. A left wing lowish paid teacher may be telling a child they wouldn't fit in at Oxbridge or that being a banker is a morally wicked choice.

Part of the problem with importing any of the good things from the private sector to the state sector is rules and regs.
The state sector is far more bound up in red tape.
At the primary school where I volunteer there are so many things the school isn't allowed to do. One example is that the literacy coordinator is only allowed to use the 'approved' books. What is this, fecking North Korea.
Another example is that a professional sportsman who offered to go in and do some coaching wasn't allowed.
Ditto a chinese speaker.

The second major problem ( and I have encountered this also at another shchool where I am governor) is that the parents just will not support their children's education.
I don't know what you do in those circmstances, really I don't.

I hardly think the example of Richard Branson attending private school is a good one. Branson is dyslexic, so presumably this wasn't dealt with effectively. He was also fairly non academic and didn't achieve well at school, but I really don't think his achievements can be attributed to the kind of school he went to - that kind of entrepeneur will do well whatever.

The problem Litchick describes of parents who just won't support their children's education is a really tough one, and I think what you can do in those circumstances is pretty limited. Ultimately, the parental home is the biggest influence on how a child will do, so if you have a school with a majority of parents who aren't interested then the teachers are facing an impossible task.

Conversely, when you live in an area where the intake is largely aspirational 'middle class', then you have the type of school that Sancti describes - you would be pushed to tell the difference from a private. Our local state school has stricter uniform rules than the local private! The rules are certainly better enforced. Academic results are very similar, in fact better if you look at GCSE across the upper sets at the state school (of course, there are some very non academic children who aren't able to achieve high results, precisely because it's non selective, but they are taught separately, so it's pointless to look at the scores overall - you need to look at the scores achieved by the classes your children are actually taught in). A level results are better. There is also a full range of sports played (with some Saturday fixtures too, so Xenia would love it!) plus CCF (she'd love it even more) oh and all children learn an instrument.

Xenia - You really don't know much about state schools if you imagine them to be seething nests for the left wing.

I wish. In general, a rather conservative -style Labour voter at best is the style of most teachers I've met.

And as for putting off Johnny because he wouldn't fit in at Oxbridge - don't make me laugh. State schools are very proud of their potential Oxbridge candidates. They work hard to raise aspirations for all their students, and it's not easy, when cultural expectations can be so low, and careers advice an implicit comment on their parents. A classic example if the is the bright girl who opts for Child Care at GCSE, when Sciences would lead her a future with wider range of options, which could, I might add, include working with children.

I've found that students don't "want" to be bankers, but want to study Business or Accounting - from which they might find their way into the filth that is the world of banking, and as for passing value judgements on them- ludicrous.

Compare state grammars with independents and the 'outcomes' are not so different. What these two types of school have in common is that generally they are not attempting to educate the poorest and most disaffected members of our society. Underprivilaged tends to equal underperforming and I suppose neither of the afore mentioned schools have to deal with this.

Provided you have enough disposable income you can choose to keep your children in a bubble of 'privilage' by paying for their education. There are bound to be benefits to that.

A clever kid with supportive parents should be able to ace GCSEs whatever school they go to. By the time you get to A level the differences between achievement in the different sectors is not remarkable.

Litchick - you hit the nail on the head with this 'What is it about these pupils that makes them over achieve statistically?' Many independently educated children are 'over achieving'. To an extent Xenia is right in that long school days (and boarding) facilitate this.

Over achievement is not sustainable - this is the reason that state school kids do better at university.