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.

I could weep when I see how nearby LEA have such poor records of sending children to Oxbridge. The children in these areas are not stupid. There must be some bias.

Look up how many are actually applying.

Success rates are very similar between state and private applicants with roughly comparable grade profiles.

People are looking for conspiracies where they simply don't exist.
Connections DO exist and make a difference.
Private school applicants are benefited by the system over state and leafy suburban state schools are benefited over disadvantaged state schools.
Not saying that its a massive conspiracy but the playing field educationally is NOT even.
Why would anyone pay private if it doesnt stack the odds in your favour?

Just to add. My school gets a lot of kids into top unis and Oxbridge every year.

I'm under no illusion that we are better off than other schools in our area.

I would have thought that, at your DS' school, family and/or money would trump school/college connections

I'm afraid that I do not believe that admissions is "schools blind" and that belief is not based on experience but on - to my sadness and shock - word of mouth from academics.

Why would anyone pay private if it doesnt stack the odds in your favour?

Because they are looking for a better educational experience for their children; access to a wider curriculum going beyond the narrow confines of KS1-5; specialist teaching in music, drama and sport; flexible boarding is needed because of parents' needs to travel for work; kids were bullied in state schools and there was no reasonable alternative state school offered; the local state schools are not good; local state schools don't offer subjects such as Further Maths which child wants to take at sixth form.....

There are so many reasons that parents choose private education. Those who choose private education hoping for an easy pass into top universities are going to be disappointed because it just doesn't work that way.

That's the point though user Those state school pupils in those LEAs are not applying

user7214743615
Those are decent reasons. I have a massive issue with testing in primary but dont agree with private schools ideologically.

My sibling went private part to do with family cirucmstance but also because we knew theyd get a better grade in tiny classes. By their own admission their A was due to all the extras.

It still doesnt convince me that state and private ed kids have had the same deal or that it's equal. I'm willing to bet that people with the reasons youve given arent the ones filling the private ed thread with the trials and traumas of gettting their child into an academic school aged 4, tutoring for 11+. Theyre the private pushy parenta stereotype.

We are all certainly led to believe that cushy connections between schools (even houses at schools) and Oxbridge colleges are long gone, as indeed we are led to believe that family connections with colleges are also a thing of the past.

Unless you are , or know well , a member of the Royal Family from years ago - do you actually have any evidence to say this is not true? I may be naive but I think this kind of thing is past. As I said upthread , it isn't the main thing nowadays IMHO - but the days of a tie and a handshake I truly believe are gone. Other factors may be relevant but not being at a certain school, let alone house. I took your post a little sarcastic - apologies if I am wrong.

It still doesnt convince me that state and private ed kids have had the same deal or that it's equal

Does anybody- well anyone not being wildly disingenuous- say that if is?

Children in the South East get far more funding and resources than in other parts of the UK. That's fucking wrong.

No I would not say that - here's what I said ( specifically re cushy connections)

" I do not believe this - I really don't - there are many reasons you can say that a child from x school may have a better shot than y school - but the days of cushy connections I truly believe are gone. That does not mean to say there is a equal playing field but let's understand the problem properly."

bobo the majority of parents at DC school are not super rich. Not in the ball park of paying colleges to take their DC.

Because that would involve a lot of cash. Many people are involved in the selection process and to keep us all quiet would be expensive .

If anything, I think some academics feel under pressure not to take too many applicants from certain schools ( especially if their department struggles with widening participation).

Sorry that was to Bertrand - Wifi being a bit slow

bert I don't know anyone who believes that private and state schooling are equal.

Which is why there is such a lot of effort put into widening access.

But it's going to be very tough to keep the good work going when the government are hell bent on castrating state education.

Those state school pupils in those LEAs are not applying hmm.

But Oxbridge spends a lot of time and resources encouraging them to apply. The RG as a whole spends a lot of time talking about subject choices.

And then threads like this, the media and teachers/parents tell them not to apply, because apparently they won't have a chance against kids who have connections (even when the actual admissions data makes clear that this is just not true).

If state schools where we lived had been higher quality we'd have sent our children to them. We did send dd to one for a year. It was a shambles.

Independent schools ate different and suit different sorts of children. State schools are very much one size fits all and that is the problem.

DH went to Oxford because he has a brain the size of a planet. He went to the local comp leaving in 1979. DS is at Oxford because he has a brain the size of a planet. He went to an elite London day shool. The difference between them. DS's confidence and self assurance are innate and part of his being. DH had to acquire them.

"State schools are very much one size fits all and that is the problem."

That really is utter bollocks!

Hmm I don't know why - I imagine lots of academics went to top schools & pass on the favour.

I'm sure plenty of the private school kids who benefit from these arrangements are very bright! Of course my school would only give the BBB offer to a genuinely very bright girl - but it still existed.

As for people questioning whether it does exist - it does. Eton doesn't have its incredible Oxbridge acceptance rates just because all of its applicants are bright!

I will name and shame...

The school was SHHS, the BBB offer was at the time St Hugh's college. I interviewed at Hertford college. Badly.

Thing is you can never change things if you ignore the problem.

Some people seem to be saying "oh private schools don't have an inherent advantage, how dare you say they do, by saying that you are deterring bright state school kids".

Well if we don't talk about the scandal of private schools using their many connections to leverage their pupils into Oxbridge at the expense of state school kids, nothing will change!

You need to apply, but you also need a level playing field.

Perhaps they should centralise admissions and get rid of the college admissions system in Oxford/Cambridge.

I imagine lots of academics went to top schools & pass on the favour.

The average salary for an academic is low. To get a six figure salary you pretty much need to leave your research and go into management. Rather few people from "top" private schools go into academia and this has been true for decades.

Eton doesn't have its incredible Oxbridge acceptance rates just because all of its applicants are bright!

Schools such as Westminster etc have extremely high average A level scores. They top the school league tables. A large fraction of their sixth form students are qualified academically for Oxbridge, in contrast to non-selective state schools with much lower average A level scores.

The school was SHHS, the BBB offer was at the time St Hugh's college.

But Oxford often gives relatively low offers to those who have performed well in pretests and interviews. Where is your evidence that a BBB offer from this particular college/course was exceptional?

BTW I was given a very low offer to my college. Not because of my school but because one of my parents had just died and because I could already demonstrate evidence of being exceptional academically. You can't draw any conclusions without knowing the full pattern of offers and the reasons for them.

We are not ignoring the "problem". We spend large amounts of time analysing admissions data for unconscious biases, training staff, trying to look in detail at special cases and so on.

And then people come onto Mumsnet and say that the admissions are biased, so putting people off and undoing a lot of the work we do to widen participation.

In reality a lot of very bright children are in private schools, for one reason or another. It makes no sense as a country for us to decide that Oxbridge simply shouldn't take them just because they went to private schools.

User - really? I would imagine that the top tiers of academia - like the top tiers of anything else - have lots of privately educated people within them.

Schools like Westminster & Eton have a disproportionate number of pupils winning Oxbridge admission. Compared to highly successful grammars like Latymer, or Henrietta Barnet (which do well at Oxbridge - just not at the same level, and these are some of the most prestigious "state" schools in the UK) - they get a far high % of pupils into Oxbridge than their grades alone warrant.

The BBB offer was given, every year (not just that year), to the pupil from SHHS who applied to St Hugh's to do History. Every year (apart from mine :p) a girl from SHHS was offered a place at Hertford college to do Geography. I got an interview when I really shouldn't have based on my A level predicted grades.

alyosha some academics attended top schools, many didn't.

But in any event I can't think of a situation where an academic makes a decision to offer a place alone. So they would have to convince their colleagues to enter into offering a place to an undeserving candidate. Colleagues who would almost never come from the same Alma Mater.

How would they manage that? And what would anyone gain?

User - the brightest kids in this country are simply not concentrated in private schools. Private schools only education around 7% of all pupils. are you saying the accumulation of wealth makes someone's children more intelligent?

And if it were really about pure intelligence, surely the most selective grammars should be topping the Oxbridge tables, as they are far far more selective than the most selective private schools.

alyosha have you got any idea what the average grades are at Westminster? Or the average scores in say STEP?