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.

You may not value MFL and not feel your DC are disadvantaged, but many many parents do value them. And naturally, they are drawn to schools which share their view.
The same goes for triple science. A pupil doing three sciences at A Level will find it harder if they haven't done three sciences at GCSE. Our local comprehensive (reasonable, not awful, not fab) only offered dual science. So we coughed up and went private.

And yes, I do think it's unfair that we could and other people can't. Yes, it is unfair that private schools have and attract more cultural capital than state schools. But I honestly don't see how you can ever level the playing field. One size does not fit all. No matter what you try to do, it's going to be unfair to somebody.

Recourse to the stereotypes of Rupert and Jocasta doesn't help anybody, either. It perpetuates a myth like the one about Oxbridge being wall-to-wall braying morons called, er, Rupert and Jocasta.

Social mobility in Britain has stalled in the last few decades. Does anybody know if there are any studies to show if that correlates with the effective ending of the grammar school system*? That's a serious question: I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone.

*Yes, I know there are still grammars all over the place, but with a few exceptions they are insanely selective, which favours DC from private primaries.

Indeed lumela.

Posters say that double is 'fine'. But what message does that send out? That it's 'fine' for some pupils to not be given the option. How does that attract the best science teachers? How does that impart love of science?

Which is what I said Shegot, I know, I consulted on writing the syllabus for an exam board. Did you actually read what I wrote? That is tory ideology though, the Russel group objected to the change stating AS was valuable, I agree.

The new A2 has less content that the old, as I said earlier, so much more is now pushed on the AS which makes far more difficult, most schools however will not stop doing them because of the pressure it keeps on year 12 students ( who wherever the are tend to be a bit cocky).

The level 9s will be incorporated, we have working parties working on the new grading system already, the fact is that what may happen is that GCSE will begin in year 9 and then students will take 3 years to get up to the highest level. As the new level 5 standard is a low B/High C this would probably work for most other students too. Out of touch?

I explained the dear thing, sorry.

Lumela I believe the stall in social mobility has to do with the lack of job growth and wages being held down in real terms since the 1970s. Globalisation and the IT boom, have undercut the rapid expansion in white collar jobs that the developed world experienced after WWII which gave so many the chance to join the "middle classes."

It's not really the fault of education.

It will be intersting to see what happens with AS My sons' private school are keeping up 4 AS (half their subjects are in the new system and half not this term) but recognise that the universities may well feel it unfair to consider AS results if some schools do not want to pay to put childreni n for them. I rather liked LVI with no exams actually so it would be a pity if children have to take an AS which is not considered by universities and waste the summer term with them rather than just being educated or lying in the sun. However if you were a bit lazy with your GCSE as plenty of children are and can pull your finger out for the AS year then I suspect it will do you no harm to have them.

On double or triple science if you're good at science it is better to do triple. Most boys do triple in my sons' school and some private schools don't allow you to do double.

longtime schools are already not doing AS in the subjects that have been de coupled! In fact the only schools in my area that are, are private (and even some private schools have ducked out).

You cannot gauge the entire system on your school.

I consulted for the board shegot, SOME schools have decoupled yes, most haven't, which is the impression I got from being involved in leading the training on it in July.

"How does that attract the best science teachers? How does that impart love of science?"

Because lots of science teachers are "fine" teaching it, triple takes lots of resources and means science has many specialists (we do it) but it takes an awful lot from the budget.

If doing triple science means that other core areas get reduced funding that's not fair either.

Funding, back to the funding, every time.

longtime it is not the schools choice to decouple.

AS has been decoupled from A2 in some subjects for 2015 starting cohort (moving to all subjects) by the government.

The choice schools have is whether to offer the decoupled AS. Many have already decided they will not. It costs a lot for, as they see it, no benefit to the A2.

Whether it will be offered will be just another inconsistency in the state sector. Something over which pupils and their parents (and to some extent teachers) will have no control.

HeighHo, yup, that's possible - but the UK has lost lots of manufacturing jobs and gained ones in services....

I had a look for some real wages data. The headline said this:
'Real wages have been falling since the 1970s and living standards are not about to recover'
but the actual text said this:
'In the 1970s and 1980s, real wages growth averaged at 2.9%, but fell to 1.5% in the 1990s and 1.2% in the 2000s. Between 2010 and 2013 alone – while the Coalition has been in power – real wages have plunged by 2.2%.'
source

So I'm not convinced. Possibly I'm biased by my own experience (state grammar followed by a scholarship to a private sixth form, which changed my life chances hugely.)

Bertrand
"Interesting that whenever I try to turn the conversation to cultural capital it drifts back to grades. Could that be because people find the idea of privilege attracting privilege an uncomfortable one?" Possibly, but maybe the question "what can be done about it?" is too hard. I am not being facetious and have not thought in depth. (possibly "obviously, Hocus" being the only response to that )

Hocus I think that's right.

No one denies that cultural capital plays a part in who gets to the most selective universities. But it's not something that is easily remedied.

Some parents and some schools have a lot. They can hardly be asked to keep it to themselves.

But there are things that can be done easily, problems that can be remedied without cost or too much disruption; things that would make a big difference. Surely, it's better to focus on those things? Though it is tough when so many schools/teachers are adamant that they are not problematic.

Shegot ... I know, I consulted with the board (stated again) on the syllabus.
But many, including private schools are continuing with the AS, as the AS content is examined again at A2.

When I worked with the board delivering the training in July, most schools including private were going to run the AS and have students sit the exam. this is due to the benefit of keeping the pressure on students and that As grades that are not as good as others can be dropped. But also as most are continuing to have students sit 4 AS levels in year 12.

I agree that this will probably change in future because there is too much content to deliver as AS and there is less to deliver at A2 so most schools will drop it, and return to 3 A levels rather than 4 AS, which is a shame really. But its the way of the wind.

The "decoupling" is actually just about the As not being linked to the A2 in terms of results. The examined syllabus is almost exact.

Yes, I noticed that too, LL f the schools I know about - keeping on with 4 AS.

On cultural capital it's not that hard to get. Go on youtube and learn how to speak like the people who you might want to work with. Learn a few activites like those people whatever group you want to join of employees or socially. Put in the hundredsf of hours practice you need to get a few Grade 8s if you want that, not essential of course. Go outside and run and join a few running clubs (not expensive). Group running seems to be a big thing in one company where my daughter works. I am observing the networking at a distance. Buy the clothes people wear for the type of job you want.

And don't drop your Ts like Osborne does. It makes you sound awful. He always says "wanna" instead of want to- including on R4 today.

The problem isn't just the most able who'll get top grades if you shit them a textbook in y7 and leave them to it. What about all those kids who with an average teacher, let alone good could come out with a mix of a*/a/b and instead are coming out with c's? When I looked at the grade breakdown at the schools near me, the bad and not good enough ones had very little in the way of grades beyond a c, or d grades in core subjects. Which confirmed my impressions of the schools, ticking those pass rate boxes was the first priority, not the individual.

One comprehensive near me has top sets similar to a grammar. Another has top sets more comparable to middle sets in the average secondary modern. And at a secondary modern you would generally assume the ability/ final outcome is skewed from the start from the intake. Whereas in some comps it's because they've decided its just easier to teach to that lower ability. And while everyone agrees hinging so much on a day is the crap part of the 11+ system, round here you don't get even that chance.

lumela I cannot quickly find any facts on wages for the UK. Here are the US facts (The UK seems to follow US economic trends, broadly.)

www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/10/Wage_stagnation.png

Service jobs, which replaced manufacturing jobs are less secure and are generally less unionised. I imagine this is part of it.

I think one could argue that grammar schools abounded because business needed them. They needed lots of new white collar workers to be trained up to fill business demand. I am sure that the state school system could gear up to meet the UK labour market demands, if it just were a little clearer where the labour market was going. No one wants to think the future is all call centres and car valletting. (Bit tongue in cheek there, but you know what I mean.)

Good old Grazia. Finger on the pulse of humanity as ever.

"grammar schools abounded because business needed them" Not really they were mainly expanded under the 1944 Education act, which was supposed to be a tripartite system, but the technical schools never really got going.

There were of course some grammars before this, but not in the same way as there was after it.

I think you had a bunch of baby boomers going through grammar schools because there was an economic boom after WWII. Yes the war ended in 1945 not 1944, but I think you are splitting hairs.

I don't think the existence of grammar schools created the bumper crop of white collar jobs. It is a phenomenon that happened in many western countries with different education systems, not just Britain.

I think the available jobs justified the grammar schools, rather than the grammar schools creating the jobs.

But the grammar schools came before 1945, the reports that inflluenced the decisions were written well before this. Its a bit revisionist that statement.

Anyway, I'd back upping school funding per pupil to make outcomes better, lots of state schools are just stretched because of funding cuts.

I know there were grammar schools before then. Am I wrong in understanding that they reached they hey-day in the post war boom?

Because of the 1944 act ! Not in a supply to meet demand way.

There is absolutely no evidence that grammar schools had any impact on social mobility in general (although they may have done for a few individuals, before someone comes in to say that their grandfather walked 10 miles a day to school in bare feet and rose to be head of ICI). The social structure was completely shaken up by the war, the nature of employment changed and there was an explosion in white collar type jobs. Secondary Moderns supplied the blue collar workers, Grammar Schools the managers, minor public schools the bosses, and the major public schools the ruling classes.