When parents are slagging off the local comp...

[Everyoneafter3]

I've posted before about my concerns over the local secondary, which, thanks to comments on this board and an excellent recent Ofsted, are very much allayed. I had a very good read of school newsletters etc and am much happier. Dd1 (Y4) is musically gifted and will also audition for a specialist music school.

The area in which we live is very affluent: many children round here go to fee-paying independent schools. These dc are going to school and telling my dd (and others) that the local secondary is rubbish ("my mum and dad say..."). One particularly stupid parent has said at home that "no child of mind will set foot in x school" which of course is coming back home with our dd.

Dd1 has now got it into her head that the local school is terrible, that she's really upset to go to not a good school, that she wishes we weren't poor (we're not! But no, we can't afford independent school fees without having to sacrifice other stuff we prioritise as a family). She's been researching exam results and all sorts.

For our part we've said well look at any local school she'd like to, although as we live across the road from the school in question it'd be unlikely that she'd get in.

I'm heartily sick of parents telling their dc how awful the local school is. It's simply not fair. My dc won't receive a 'lesser' education. They aren't going to a 'rubbish' school. If this continues I'm tempted to speak to their current primary school tbh. What else can I do? I've told dd to not listen, we've looked at the school website, talked about results (!) but I'm at a loss.

[Ontopofthesunset]

Your suggestion, as goodbye says, is odder. Why would you assume such a thing when there are tens of Westminster students being predicted higher grades?

[goodbyestranger]

I think that scenario is very unlikely: the prediction as well as the offer.

[Alyosha]

Ontopof - odd comment. It's perfectly possible there are Westminster pupils with predicted grades of AAB who get offered A*AA and then go on to achieve it (motivation is a great thing!).

We have no idea!

In any case, privately educated pupils dominate in Medicine, Dentistry, Law etc as well.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/8386004/Independent-school-pupils-dominate-medicine-courses.html

[MumTryingHerBest]

Clavinova - We don't even know how many boys from QEBS even apply to Oxford - they seem to favour Cambridge.

I don't know the firgure for 2016 but the figures for 2015 are here:

www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate/additional-info/applications-and-acceptances-ucas-apply-centre?wssl=1

28 applied, 7 accpetances, 25% acceptance rate.

I have recently been told by a QE parent that the 2016 figure was higher but I don't have an independant source to back that up. Her DC is hoping to study medicine at Imperial.

[Ontopofthesunset]

Since 89% of A level grades are A* and A at Westminster the colleges don't need to make offers to students with low predicted grades! Presumably the students with the low predictions are among the 50% of students (or whatever the figure is) not getting in to Oxbridge from Westminster.

I bet no one from Westminster goes into Dentistry. Loads and loads of biomedical science too from QE Boys.

It would be interesting too, though I don't have the time, to compare top grades across subjects in different schools. Across the country over 40% of students got A or A in Maths last year and 56% in Further Maths. Obviously these are self-selecting in that only better mathematicians do Further Maths, but compare that to History where only 23% of students got A/A. It's seems that it's harder to get A generally in Arts subjects - languages have quite high A/A percentages, but low A*.

[mousymary]

Perhaps it's just round here, then. STEMtastic at ds's school.

[user7214743615]

I think there is a bit of a "STEM panic" (not my term!) in the state sector.

Not reflected in application and admission statistics for STEM courses at university. The UK produces few STEM graduates, compared to its competitors. Hence the panic that changes in immigration rules are going to leave even more posts in STEM fields unfilled.

[mousymary]

I think there is a bit of a "STEM panic" (not my term!) in the state sector, and parents are herding their dcs into "useful" subjects and away from the Arts. Therefore those dcs (particularly boys) who may well have gone up against Westminsterites etc in the past (think History Boys types) are now being told STEM/Law or bust. Believe me, I've seen it. Plenty of people asking why ds is doing History when Law leads to a career. So many people are really proud of their dcs going off to study Law or Business Studies, even if it is at a crummy institution.

And of course it starts early - the stampede to do triple science at school, the shunning of reading and the subtle brainwashing that cultural activities are a waste of time.

[goodbyestranger]

It's one aspect of what I meant by parental expectations.

[goodbyestranger]

Yes Clavinova I said miles up the thread perhaps look at subject choices.

If you check out which A levels tend to be the most popular at grammars and which careers dominate then it's obvious that that's part of the story at least.

[Alyosha]

Clavinova - I don't think they are "pulling strings" as you put it (well they probably are, but that's not the main reason they are getting in).

I think that Oxford and Cambridge admissions tutors have a) a conscious bias towards Westminster ("Great school, all their students have been awesome at our college" or "Westminster, that school which our college is connected to, he deserves a chance to achieve this offer, even though his predicted grades are low") and b) an unconscious bias that works against state schools for a variety of different reasons (accent sounds "unintelligent", more ethnic minority students - a known and proven unconscious bias in pretty much every environment, a pupil that they don't think will "fit").

Again, given that private school pupils also dominate medicine & other highly selective courses, I think this is an odd way to justify low Oxbridge entrance. Essentially you're saying "well fewer Private school pupils apply for medicine but they still dominate" - surely that shows their unfair advantage?!

W/r/t QE boys - they have no interest in 20% of the courses. But it's not that they're getting 20% fewer offers. They're getting 60% fewer offers.

I don't think it's a particular problem they avoid Oxford, although lots of pupils avoid Oxford because it is more private school dominated than Cambridge.

Even if you take Westminster out of the equation, lots of private schools do the same as/better QE Boys, but with worse results. I.e. RGS which "only" has 79% of A levels at A/A but gets an equivalent % of boys into Oxbridge. Or UCS, (73% A/A). Or SHHS (64% A*/A).

[Clavinova]

Alyosha
You still haven't explained to me why Westminster need to pull strings with Oxbridge admissions tutors (for interviews) when their pupils achieve 89.91 A*/A at A level.

Surely subject choice has much to do with any disparity?
Some very helpful person has already put in a FOI request for university destinations/degree subjects/GCSE and A level results for QE Boys for the last 5 years.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_level_results_grades_universit#incoming-828350

Zero boys at QE Boys have chosen to study classics at degree level in the last 5 years (despite 3 years compulsory Latin only one boy sat GCSE Latin in 2016, none at A level), no boys chose theology/religious studies (for the boys who chose PPE in fact 50% are studying at Oxford), only 1 or 2 chose modern languages in 5 years (a handful chose economics + a language). QE Boys obviously have no interest whatsoever in nearly 20% of the degree courses offered at Oxford.

Looking at the degree choices they have made - medicine is the most popular and very oversubscribed in any university, other courses such as dentistry are not offered by Oxbridge - in fact Oxford point out that 17.5% of state educated pupils with AAAs apply for degree courses Oxford doesn't offer.

We don't even know how many boys from QEBS even apply to Oxford - they seem to favour Cambridge.

[Alyosha]

Moomin...I think that's a very sad way of looking at things.

Currently the effect of the school is small. However several state schools (KSA, Michaela) are trying to change this, and make it so that even if you come from a deprived background, you can access the same opportunities as those at Westminster.

Their efforts are not helped by people point blank refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of bias in Oxbridge admissions.

This is when:

The Sutton trust's research shows that all state pupils, even those at the most selective schools in the country underperform at Oxbridge relative to their exam results

Westminster has Oxbridge college staff on their governing bodies, and the colleges run alumni events at Westminster school.

Many private school pupils (such as myself!) can attest to having some advantage through the whole admissions process.

A whole raft of research can attest to unconscious bias almost every discipline: academic research, admissions to orchestra, job applications. Why on earth would Oxbridge be any different?

If you don't admit there's a problem you will never change it.

[Alyosha]

Badbadbunny - you are 100% right. Shiny buildings are not required for a great education.

How private schools justify their fees rising 5% every year is beyond me, but there you are.

However the big name private schools are in an arms race to have the best facilities to attract the international students they increasingly rely upon.This pushes up fees.

Of course a lot of the money is spent on wider curriculum provision, smaller class sizes. Certainly this will have some benefits; but you would expect to see these in the results. When elite grammars & privte schools have very similar results (QE Boys practically identical to both Westminster & NLCS) you have to wonder exactly why they aren't getting into Oxbridge.

I would also like to point out that people who have researched this - the Sutton Trust - definitely think that all state pupils, including those from the most elite grammars, are disadvantaged at Oxbridge entry even when they have equivalent grades.

[Moomin37]

The SER studies generally found that the 'school effect' was between 7-15%, so as you point out it will vary between schools. However, regardless of these variations, overall the research suggests that schools are not the biggest influence on a child's life chances and success. I did this all several years ago and the research/notes were chucked recently during pre-baby clear out so that's probably the best I can offer

[Badbadbunny]

Over 85% of life chances and success are down to 'personal' and 'social' factors (like social capital, poverty, social class, parenting etc.) meaning that the 'school effect' (the impact of the particular school) is only 15% at most.

Presumably those percentages are averages though, so there will be people who've been affected more badly by school than that average. What is the spread and standard deviations of those averages.

[Moomin37]

Hello I've not read the full thread but thought I'd share what I learnt from doing a masters in education... Over 85% of life chances and success are down to 'personal' and 'social' factors (like social capital, poverty, social class, parenting etc.) meaning that the 'school effect' (the impact of the particular school) is only 15% at most. This is not to downplay the impact of good teachers and their dedication and hard work (I admire them enormously) but to put conversations about 'good' and 'bad' schools in context.

For those who may be interested this comes from School Effectiveness Research and I was particularly interested in the more recent research by John West-Burnham and Charles Desforges (he argued that out of all the personal and social factors, what he called 'good at home parenting' and specifically 'talking to your child' had the greatest impact). Knowing all of this makes me chuckle (or get mad depending on my mood) when people get wound up about choice of schools. Sorry to ramble on!

[goodbyestranger]

The shiny new building thing is a complete red herring. Finances at all state schools are creaking and it's not been great for years and has been getting worse and is going to get even worse unless there's a significant revision in the government's thinking. It's fair to say that some manage vastly better than others on a strained budget and that's down to leadership. Nevertheless these guys aren't magicians and there's a (currently very miserable) bottom line.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

PFI is strangling many state schools.

The HT at my local comp ( who I have know for years) was telling me that if she wants to replace a rotting window, she has to not only pay for the window but ongoing maintenance of said window. For years.

Meanwhile, the school has no head of maths!

As for private schools and capital, I can't speak for all schools, but the finances are very transparent at DC's school and repayment on capital expenditure is not a large proportion of fees.

The biggest costs are of course wages.

[Badbadbunny]

Surely a lot of cost in private school is capital cost (lovely new buildings etc.) the kind of stuff that adds exactly 0 to a child's educational experience but which looks nice at the open day.

So why have all the state comps around here had shiny new buildings? If it adds nothing to education? One school in particular has had ongoing building work for over a decade and now there isn't a trace of the original building (which wasn't that old anyway). Looks more like an airport lounge than a school now with atriums etc. Two have had newly built state of the art sports halls, another has had a state of art sixth form centre - all glass and metal.

But the state grammars are in ancient buildings, one of which is uninhabitable because of leaky roof and windows and is moth-balled because they keep getting knocked back for govt grants? So many classes are being run out of temporary buildings in the playgrounds.

And our only private school doesn't look to have had much money spent on it for decades.

So, basically, around here at least, it's the state comps who've been splashing the cash, yet their league tables continue to go down. Funnily enough the grammars results continue to get better even though they're in temporary buildings and don't have any shiny new labs, sports halls or sixth form centres.

Same with our local hospital. Completely rebuilt using PFI in Labour's years and now more like a shopping centre, but it's been downgraded and is now under special measures - it's outcomes were better when it was a 1920's building!

[BasiliskStare]

Alyosha,

I admire your stamina.

I hope I answered your % question.

[Alyosha]

SHHS recently wasted an ungodly amount of money demolishing and rebuilding perfectly serviceable nice 19th C building.

[Alyosha]

Obviously lots of private schools also spend it on broader curriculum choice and smaller class sizes

But some of the main costs are capital related and don't directly add to education IMO.

[Alyosha]

Oops - QE boys is actually 88% A*/A...digits error.

Goodbye - I'm not really sure you can compare entirely new gym wings, DT labs etc. to upgrading a science lab.

It's a different league...

You can read the famously anti-private school telegraph on it: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9670299/Private-schools-spending-fees-on-shiny-new-sports-halls.html

[goodbyestranger]

Alyosha you're sounding increasingly clueless.

Why do you suppose state schools don't incur capital costs either? Having a science lab to operate in or a classroom for MFL which is fit for purpose are fairly key to the delivery of an adequate education.

If you don't understand the direct correlation between a minimum funding level for each pupil and the education provided then there really is no prospect of talking sensibly.