No improvement in social mobility since the '70's and bright kids form a poor background are underachieving

[manchita]

Isn't it great living in a classless society?

(I want to carry on discussing this but I have to go and do some shopping as I have nothing for lunch!)

Mixing intakes - using a lottery a la Brighton for example - brings a whole host of problems, and objections, itself.

Bsic sumamry of NMC's sit- benefits familoy as Mum and 2 of 4 kids disabled so dad acting as carer. Son attends a local private school ans couldnt cope at state due to SN. They were refused the bursary in favour of high earning local famillies who apparently ahve mroe expenses (eg 4X4's, nannies).

..........

Kathy, alot of the places on the AS scheme were actually scrapped by Tony Blair as he argued that local schools should be good enough to cater for everyone(yeah, right)
I believe it is definitely worth doing for the opportunities it provides. Of course, a wider ranging scheme would be better which is why I think the grammer schools in theory werre a good idea- maybe we need a modern equivalent where parents get free uniforms etc.
As a working class person, I feel it neccessary to actually work so hard on my childrens' confidence, self esteem , education, extra curricular activities as I think they will have to work harder and be more disciplined to achieve that children who are born into affluent families.

Siblings at different schools for one. The community aspect.

I'm broadly sympathetic to the idea myself, but it's not an easy solution.

Well all the school back home had a mixed intake so it was that way or the high way. No loterries or other gimmicks- they just divided the villages and estates byb 4 and sent them to different schools.

There is no way that isnt going to upset the MC yummy mummy brigade sure, but then they will also want their kids to over achieve so either poeple want to improve opportunities for the poor able, or to maintain the status quo. if its improve op's, then you make the hard decisions.

Itwas- what objections and problems? Please explain....

I used to work in a city which had wedge-shaped catchment areas - a bit of inner city estate along with the leafy suburbs.

Wedge-shaped would still not work in ours, because we have suburban areas which are so different in character.

I imagine comprehensives work best in small-ish towns where there is a "hub" model, with one school at the centre of a doughnut-ring catchmnt with all sorts of areas in it.... ?

UD what do you think would be better in yours then?

In my city we have an odd wedge, triangle into the city affair which seems to mix up areas a bit.

Tis complex though my dp teaches at a school which is outstnding and I mean that in the genuine sense it is also outstanding by ofsted decree and takes a mix of poorer kids and some of the richest in the city.

The divide between them who go on to 6th form is still along class lines even though they all attend a fantastic school.

What the studty does is compares the mobility of those born in 1958 to those born in 1970.
The 1958 cohort benefited from comprehensve schools, high subsidies for education (full grants etc). 1970 cohort were the first to have loans not grants and got assisted places. the studty looks at the effect of these changes and not what the reforms that have taken place since 1997 have done.

That's interesting witchandchips what did it find?
I suspect full grants and subsidaries would help a lot more people go on to further study.

Loans are pants, it does put people off going to uni (anecdotally) who wants to start off with thousands in debt?

I don't have any quick answers, sadly.

I think a good start would be to ensure that all the schools with sixth-forms were not in the same part of the city. Because at the moment every single one of them is in Nick Clegg's nice cosy little nook in Hallam. Sends a great message to the kids in the North and East of the city - oh, yes, they can still go and study catering or hairdressing at the College. Big deal.

Hey we're in the same city! You know the history to the stripping of the cities 6th forms, I assume. Yes def more 6th forms would be excellent. 6th forms make a massive difference and the five states schools that have them are the highest achievers (well, duh) yes they do take from leafy dore and the like, but also lowfield etc.

Whereas in the rest of city you only have the option of travelling across city to college. unsurprisingly lots don't.

The other option is as they do back home- no sixth form whatsoever, all school leavers go to the same college (usually gets forst or joint first ranking in assessments nationally) and offers everything from SN courses to bricklaying to Oxbridge entrance.

Our catchements weren't wedge or donut shaped (sounds like a cake fayre!), they were very deliberately scripted. Certain villages were byussed across town to get the proportions right, all the schools were fairly close to each other (one per council estate effectively) and then the rest (pretty much outlying villages with a small number of inner town private housing areas)was just divvied up.

My children go to a very socially mixed primary school in an 11&divid; area. Last year, 37 out of 62 year 6s sat the 11+. 11 passed. All 11 were the children of middle class professional families. I know, because my dd was one of them. It is completely outrageous - if grammar schools ever were part of the solution, they shre as hell aren't now. Theya re just a way of channelling more privilege to the already privileged.

My children go to a very socially mixed primary school in an 11&divid; area. Last year, 37 out of 62 year 6s sat the 11+. 11 passed. All 11 were the children of middle class professional families. I know, because my dd was one of them. It is completely outrageous - if grammar schools ever were part of the solution, they shre as hell aren't now. Theya re just a way of channelling more privilege to the already privileged.

i was just giving some background to the LSE study
imo it is not loans per se that are the problem but how they paid back. The old (pre 2004(?) were mortgage type loans that had to be paid back no matter how much you earned. The current ssytem is much fairer, it is paid back through the tax system and those that earn more pay it back faster and those that earn less have more time (and so end up paying less becasue no real interest is charged).

Well yes but the start to pay level needs a look at- £15K? That's really not even a start wage for a teacher yet said first year teacher or whatever will likely as not also have a stonking overdraft / credit card commitment to pay off from Uni as well. And there's no gurantee that aprents asessed as making a contribution to pay will ever do so- seen that happen too many times, sadly, and kid either doesn't eat or gives up Uni for work (halls costing more than the total loan grant entitlement even before catering, and needing to be paid termly in advance)

Oh it didn't really work in ours either UQD. And it made for some pretty nasty divisions in the school as well.

Interesting about 6th forms. Many of the village colleges around where I live now have no 6th forms. And the nearest town has a couple of excellent 6th form colleges (one really outstanding). Results are very good overall.

This study suggests that those children from affluent/less affluent homes that are on the same level at 5 are divided by the time they are 7, with the less afffluent children falling behind duing those two years. I don't really believe loans or grants are the issue

Slur - I have heard a version of the history but I'm still not quite sure I grasp the logic of it!

I'd also say that when educationalists and Ofsted talk about "improving" schools they are barking up the wrong tree if they think the problem lies with the management, the teaching or the school buildings. Time and again it's shown that there is a correlation between achievement and socio-economic background. Statistical glitches aside, the schools which do best are those in the "leafy suburbs".

And yet these other factors - buildings, management, teaching style - are the things which are changed or marked for change. Probably because they can be changed, whereas you can't suddenly give 700 kids an injection and make them middle-class or high-achieving. The kids and their parents are the "raw material" - if that's flawed to begin with, you can't criticise the schools or the teachers for producing an imperfect product, or make it better by dressing it up in a prettier box.

My DW teaches at a tough school in a multi-cultural area with high deprivation, and yet Ofsted measures them against the same criteria as they would a white, middle-class, affluent area where most parents are professionals. It's as if they ask everyone to run a 100m race, and yet don't take account of the fact that some runners have a ball-and-chain attached to them or are starting from further behind the start line.

Teachers are furious at Ofsted's obsession with "averages" and labelling schools as below average. Well, duh, Ofsted, hello? If you have an average, there are going to be people below it. My DD could tell you that. It's like my working out an average height for kids, and declaring loftily that people should aim to be above that average height.

P{ossibly theya re a small part of the issue manchita when you look at why their aprents are on a low income in the first palce- and how to change that for the future (once I graduate Dh will start his degree and we will have far mroe earning potential then than before). One of teh easiest answers to how do we create social mobility for chidlren is by creatring social mobility opportunities for their parents, surely?