Why would anyone consider going to Rugby school better than the mixed local comp?

[Charis2]

I read this article in the standard earleir, and just thought what is this headmaster on? Why is this scholarship presented as such a huge honour for the boy, when in fact it is a way of the school paying to improve its results by taking in some of the best sixth form students without fees.

What "lifechanging" opportunities does he expect he can offer, which Hassenbrook acadamy can't?

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/needs-pic-teenage-footballer-wins-70000-scholarship-to-boarding-school-that-invented-rugby-a2953791.html

Headmaster Peter Green said he hoped Michael and other Arnold Foundation scholars would have a “ripple effect” on their communities when they return home.

He said: “We might be able to be transformative and transform their lives. Then when they go to university, and after, they can start to transform their own local communities. It’s not about parachuting someone out of that. We want to keep their association with where they are from.”

What a snob. Does he think the staff at Hassenbrook only teach poor peoples maths and physics, and the maths at Rugby is somehow a better class of maths? perhaps he thinks the laws of physics perform better there too?

I hope this lad has fun, but I don't think for a moment his life is going to be in any way better because he spent two years mixing with rich snobs rather than normal people.

we have the fact that high performing state school students out perform private school students at these universities if 'these' universities means Oxford and Cambridge then I don't think that's the case. Cambridge has released research showing that it is not the case there. Not sure about Oxford but the Cambridge research fits the original HEFCE research which shows no difference in degree outcome for those with the top A-level results here

longtime I'm not justifying my decision to send my child private. The non existent provision in my lea, i.e shit school only justified why risking her disappointment in trying for full fee reduction at independents was a worthwhile gamble. Actually taking that place up once it was financially possible isn't one that requires any justification.

Another reason why they aren't representitive at Oxbridge is the amoun t of outreach that is done.. My school gets one visit, Eton got 5 last year. Funny that eh? When you talk about it being representitive I take you back to my point on funding, when its down to funding, ALL places at Oxbridge should be taken up by private school students. The funding makes all the difference.

Anyway, I think we're round and round in circles here and I'm maybe a bit defensive.

Oh, I do have one proposal, if you opt out of the state system, you stay out, if you want to go to University? Pay the fees that overseas students do or the equivilent of what you did at private school. Meaning we could reduce fees for other students and that we give a better chance to them too.

Oh, I do have one proposal, if you opt out of the state system, you stay out, if you want to go to University? Pay the fees that overseas students do or the equivilent of what you did at private school.

Good luck with that one.

Woudl you support, long, therefore a ban on children from private preps going to state grammars for example (perhaps also by way of a parental and asset bar to state education and also those in places like Cambridge who go private until sixth form and then go to Hills Road being allowed to access that state schools?

"Where did I mention 10 a*? I didn't."

Oh, sorry. You said she would get top grades without effort- to me that means 9 or 10 A*s . What does top grades mean to you?

They don't offer 10 gcses, so somewhat hard to obtain them. Nor is doing 9 academic ones remotely likely. So yeah, she would breeze the few on offer.

How many do they offer?

Indeed. The 11 As is the top grades. My children's As and As is not top grades, not in the good schools anyway, although still a reasonable result.

Regarding Oxbridge.

Yes, we have now managed to ensure that more state schooled pupils than private attend Oxbridge.

This has been a result slogged for by the universities in question.

However, the state sector still has a long way to go. Far too few of those state schooled students went to comp.

And Oxbridge is doing much better on this issue than many of the other very selective universities. Look at the LSE or Bristol!

As for outreach, well, a lot of us work very hard on this.

I visit lots of schools.

But I'll be honest, where private schools are knocking our doors down and sending us invitations, the state sector is less interested ( apart from a notable few). Some are frankly resistant to visits. Many just bin our letters/emails.

It would be interesting to know why some schools are resistant- I know ds's would decline because they aren't anything like ready yet- we're still working on getting kids to consider universities more than 20 miles away. And there must be plenty like us. But if you've got kids with the grades why would you not?

9 iirc. But timetabling means you couldn't do them all as academic choices. Tbh that particular school would drop maths and English if it had a choice because the legally required subjects fuck up their only concern, pass grades.

I think there are a number of reasons.

One , which longtimelurker has touched on is that many teachers are already very stretched, asking them to add to their load is understandably met with disinclination.

Then there are the schools which don't like our advice ( I know a few have turned down a second visit after hearing me advise that no one needs 12/13 GCSEs).

Then there are schools which are ideologically opposed to elitism as they see it; the schools with an orthodoxy that all qualification have equivalence. They are usually reluctant to outreach visits.

"Then there are schools which are ideologically opposed to elitism as they see it; the schools with an orthodoxy that all qualification have equivalence. They are usually reluctant to outreach visits"

That's one good thing about the new GCSE system- it certainly knocks that on the head!

Yes, say what you like about Gove ( and I do) but he did deal with this issue.

The thing is I have nothing against different qualifications and subjects. And I think schools with mixed cohorts should be offering them, I just hate the way some teachers refuse to acknowledge the differences between them.

Not fair on students!

God yes. A few years ago my local comp's results tables had their high achievers getting 17 GCSE equivalents. That cannot possibly have been a good idea.

shegot, we push and push for outreach, really. We take up places with our year 9s at the events you put on, they work. We ask repeatedly for more than one visit from a college ( we didn't get any from Cambridge last year).

My last post was slightly OTT tbh, I do think it would level a playing field e.g kids from average backgrounds will be starting with lower debts, but I also think it would end up with most places at top universities being taken by kids whose parents pay the full whack, so it wouldn't solve anything.

I also agree with you that no one needs 12-13 GCSEs.

Its all ok anyway, just wait till new the GCSE grades come in, what is now a C will be a level 4, a top C/B grade will be a level 5. So many schools won't hit targets that acadmisation will ensue and all our kids will attend some form of private school.

Our grammar school has kids routinely getting 14/15/16 GCSEs-not equivalents- because they start in year 9, do more in year 10 and more agIn in year 11. That's stopped too. God I hate approving of something Gove did.......

My current school does that, but we start the most able on AS topics in y 11.. and state schools don't stretch and challenge eh....

That's great longtime. Again though if that was the case in the majority of comprehensives they'd be far more represented at Oxbridge/ rg unis, powerful positions. But if your state choices don't include one that does, then there is no remit to request it, let alone demand it. Just like at primary level, Dd's taught well beyond ks2/ l6 sats curriculum. But not all do. Hence one of the reasons state able provision is so inconsistent imo, because it's down to individual schools/ staff to decide whether they will provide anything above. And even individual teachers who want to may not get that chance if leadership objects. Plus the fact decent differentiation takes really good teaching, and in some schools the lack of that results in the top sets being the last in line for the few good teachers. If you don't have either the teacher that can differentiate between a large range, or safety in numbers, or school leadership willing to step in and instigate able provision then you're fucked.

I honestly don't think every state school isn't good enough, but far too many aren't when it comes to able provision. What isn't good enough is the fact the state system itself leaves it down to a matter of choice for schools, and if they don't there is no guideline or policy to object upon.

State schooling is let down by the amount of funding it gets, simple. Not by lack of ambition, teacher effort, caring... funding.

£4,000 per year 7-11 pupil.

About £3,000 for each 6th former ( hence the reason lots of 6th form colleges are struggling massively) Not that it takes more time to plan lessons for and assess 6th fomers naturally.

In my school the 6th form ( and we send a good number to Oxbridge, and over 50% at Russell group, in a non-selective state comp), used to cross subsidise the lower school when we got more money for them. We could hire more experienced teachers, spread the weight of 6th form around a bit, the experience just brings so many benefits.

Now we hire NQTs, who work hard, and get their experience, but just the lack of it really challenges what we can provide. An NQT/teacher of 2 years or so, just isn't as resourced so they can't then take on extra's voluntarily.

If it was funding then surely the remaining state grammars wouldn't have the disproportional representation they do at Oxbridge/ rg unis etc?

But grammars are selective dear, and in select areas where it was politically advantageous for the 1970s Heath government ( Thatcher closed more grammars than anyone else as education sectretary) to keep them open.

They don't have to push their funding as far.

I'll eluidate with reference to specifics:

• Grammars are less likely to have SEN students, they will have some but not as many as a regular comp.
• The equivilant classes in a comp are sets 1-2, now these sets do the work, tend to behave, get the stretcher work done and do very well. They take far less intervention than other classes lower down.
• Grammars still tend to be in leafy areas that have the huge advantage of supportive parents.

They get the same funding, the have to do less with it.