State Schools Eclipse Eton in rankings for A-Level Science

[evenstrangerthings]

Your Life has today published a new school ranking based on STEM subject performance at A Level and ability to deliver skills for the jobs of today and the future. Several schools have climbed more than 1,000 places in new STEM rankings, while Eton and Harrow drop out of the top 100. In some instances poorly performing schools according to Ofsted have a higher than average STEM ranking. On the back of findings, Your Life Chair Edwina Dunn, has called for an ‘urgent rethink’ of the way schools are assessed to equip the country for a post BREXIT world.

Report and full table at:

https://www.yourlife.org.uk/urgent-rethink-schools-assessment-required-equip-uk-post-brexit-worldd_

But there are jobs and money to be earned in non-STEM sectors, too. As I've said before, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a focus on encouraging STEM subjects, but it's more than a little reductive to suggest that all state school children need to do STEM otherwise they won't get a job or earn money. I'm sure that is not what noblegiraffe meant, but it is one possible reading of the previous post. I know many children pursuing humanities subjects at both state and private schools.

I know 'things are different from when I was young' but most of the jobs that have enabled me and many of my friends to be economically productive, high earning members of society are still going to be there. The academic publishers are still going to be publishing academic books for all these STEM students to read and the communications companies are going to be developing ever more creative and varied ways of getting different messages across. We'll still need cleaning companies and specialist copywriters and NGOs and people producing the music, art, TV and comedy that we consumer voraciously.

I think encouraging STEM is great but I question the rather bludgeoning agenda behind the original post and the way the data is reported. Selective schools that focus exclusively on maths are going to have very good maths results.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see my sons school in the top 20.

Math is the most popular subject at DS2's school 2nd physics. 40% of his house/year went off to do STEM subjects as did many of his friends.
Having said this I'd never heard of "STEM" till I'd seen it on MN. I think many parents at schools like DS2's, Eton and Harrow are certainly very interested in results but don't have the same obsession with measuring academic and ultimately career success by what subject is actually studied at university. It's a different ethos where STEM subjects and medicine dentistry and law are seen as the ones to take as they definitely lead onto a certain quantifiable and defined career path.
Secondly I suspect if my exceedingly math capable DS2 had gone to our local(ish) top grammar school he would now be studying a STEM subject but the breadth of the curriculum at his school really encouraged his interest in classics, art, music and languages etc, broadened his horizons and encouraged him to be not only interested in but love these subjects too. He goes off to university this September to study one of these. I'm delighted for me the most important thing is to study at university something you love not something that will lead onto a "good job." This is not because I've endless money to prop up my DS when he leaves university.
Interestingly I was talking to a history teacher (state school) he was moaning about many parents do not see the value of subjects like history and discourage their children from doing it for A level pushing them into STEM subjects. Originally from another the US he said this would not happen there.

Like scaevola, I cannot see how the table has been compiled.

I can see several ways in which it could have been compiled, each of which would give different outcomes, but without any indication of what the table is actually showing, how is it possible to draw any conclusion from it?

The ambition is usually for DC in state schools to aim for paths where there are jobs, and money to be earned, hence the focus on STEM.
Nothing wrong in DCs going for STEM careers if that is their natural inclination and ability. Too many though are constrained by that sort of view in their choice of subject and career.
I work in a STEM field with high earning potential. It is sad to observe those who have been shoehorned into STEM specialism and regret it in later years. It is also a shame to observe more young people nowadays in STEM careers with a very one dimensional perspective and who struggle to talk on interests outside their specialism.

but it's more than a little reductive to suggest that all state school children need to do STEM otherwise they won't get a job or earn money.

But equally it's foolish to argue that STEM subjects won't make it easier to get a job or earn more money, which for the sort of people who can't rely on nepotism or whatever, has to be a consideration.

There was a post in the Staffroom forum asking about becoming a history teacher. The responses were that history wasn't a shortage subject, didn't attract large bursaries and there was a lot of competition for jobs. If it had been about becoming a maths or physics teacher, posters would have been saying that they could get bursaries of up to £30k just to train and their pick of jobs. As pointed out in the article, there is an economic premium attached to certain A-level subjects and for maths, it's huge.

I'm not saying that kids who are bad at STEM should do STEM if their talents lie elsewhere, but that a bright student with their pick of subjects should think very carefully before rejecting STEM subjects.

Some people can afford to do whatever they like, but you don't get many poor kids studying History of Art for a reason.

The other idea (often peddled on here) that parents paying for education are happy to financially prop up their children after leaving university in perpetuity is ridiculous. I've never heard a parent say they are happy too do this. Parents stumping up £36+k pa in school fees are usually able to do it because they've been very successful in their own careers and thinking about it over the years I've met few engineers doctors etc who earn that kind of money, most are (needless to say) investment bankers or something financial and didn't study STEM subjects at university. So maybe they know how unimportant this actually is for significant financial success.
Secondly I struggle to see the difference between history of art and history or Eng Lit.

I think there are very few people who can rely on nepotism! I'm sure the vast majority of people studying arts or humanities degrees are not relying on nepotism.

If you have a maths degree, presumably you have many more, better paid options than teaching - as this whole thread is suggesting. Maybe if you have studied history you're likely to be interested in academic study in and of itself (since apparently humanities are very limiting so you wouldn't choose them unless you were), and therefore more likely to want to teach. I'm sure there are multiple reasons that maths teachers are in short supply and I don't think it's just the number of people studying maths.

I know having a STEM degree gives you more options, but enjoying what you do is fundamental to success.

I wish educational research in this country was not always seen through an independent vs state lens. It makes no sense given the diversity of schools in each sector. Does that state vs independent headline come from the OP or those promoting the table? Given over half of the schools in the top 100 are independent it doesn't seem to support that narrative at all. Also the top 4 are hardly representative examples of either sector - the two state being highly selective maths colleges that only teach 4 or so maths/science subjects and the two independents essentially being crammers for foreign students.

What it does seem to show is that academically selective schools dominate whatever it is that they are measuring here, but frankly it would be astounding if it were anything else. The other notable feature is that over half of the schools are single-sex. Quite a few of those that are listed as mixed are mixed at 6th form but not lower down the school (Westminster, Magdalen, KCS Wimbledon are all boys before 6th form). Though I imagine that may well just be correlated with the fact that selective schools are more likely to be single sex than non-selective are.

Add to that the fact that most of those in the top 25 which have moved quite a bit are specialist schools (KCL and Exeter Maths schools and the MOD 6th form College) I'm not sure that it actually shows very much save that local non-selective state schools don't do as well on this table as selective schools do. Without knowing what it is measuring that hardly helps.

To come back to the maths or physics teaching, teaching, like medicine, has to be something you really want to do. Both jobs are relatively poorly paid, compared to other jobs requiring the same qualifications, and, what's more, both are extremely hard work and subject to intense public scrutiny. I have immense respect for the teachers I work closely with and for the doctors in my family. But I wouldn't recommend either as a career to my children unless that was what they really wanted to do.

Teaching was just one example of where it's easier to get a job if you're STEM qualified.

Look at the government shortage occupation list www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-k-shortage-occupation-list engineers, medical scientists, IT specialists...loads of STEM jobs on there.

parents paying for education are happy to financially prop up their children after leaving university in perpetuity is ridiculous.

But because they've paid for their education (including university it seems), and are a family that has the means to do that, the child is nicely set up so that they don't have to. Connections. A good CV. All that cultural capital. Good results from a top school. Many will then go on to claim that they worked hard for their success, not realising how much was handed to them.

There's a demographic/ethnic element here, too. In my home town, the super-selective grammar schools, both on the list, are magnets for SE Asian children, who tend to study STEM subjects at A level.

Concord College is a very international school, I believe.

This isn't a blanket statement, btw, or intended in any prejudiced way. I work in a creative/arts business, with a highly regarded senior colleague who is British-Pakistani.

The idea that pupils from independent education haven't done a days hard work in their lives is highly insulting. IME of observing both sectors, again contrary to what is peddled on here, children from the independent sector are not routinely over spoon fed thickos who've managed top grades and got places at top universities not by intellectual ability and hard work but by some sort of magic wand waving on behalf of their schools.
But I do agree that family connections do produce jobs internships etc but this applies to wealthy/connected parents in both sectors and is an inevitable part of the many adavantages of life preferred on some children e.g. books at home and being read to from an early age and not on others.
My DS currently on a gap year has worked abroad, and currently does a couple of days a week for my DH, no reference required, no interview etc. although like all staff he was employed on a three months trial period, he is just lucky that we can offer him this, he also works in another "job" two days a week a 13+ gruelling hour day, for no money, again he's lucky that we can financially allow him to do this, a friend was saying she can't afford for her DD to take an unpaid/poorly paid gap year. He'll go off to university with three brilliant references from three completely unrelated areas because he's exceedingly hard working adaptable quick to learn and reliable, and also an understanding of the world of work, two jobs are or have been exceedingly shitty at times but he still persevered. I accept that he may not fully realise how lucky he is to be able to do these jobs but he does know what very hard work means.
I except that some from the independent sector have had it handed to them them on a plate as have some in the state sector but the vast majority haven't their parents are exceedingly aware perhaps more than others as they are clearly successful that in 2017 it's not A level grades or a good degree from a good university that is the sole key to success that employers are now looking for hard working multitalented individuals.

The idea that pupils from independent education haven't done a days hard work in their lives is highly insulting.

Which is why no one said it.

But attributing success simply to hard work and not acknowledging the huge leg-up that background gives leads to opinions like it being more important to study something that you love than something that will make it easier to get a job. Kids from Eton and the like will already find it easy to get a job.

noble if you read my last post you will see that I have more than acknowledged the huge leg up background gives. Yes some things are handed to them but many also work very hard to get where they are.
The few Sunday Times (and similar) rich listers and even the just the very wealthy we know personally have achieved this wealth by hard work, yes connections giving them a leg up and background may have started them on their career but sheer grind has made them monumentally financially successful.

So we are all agreed that the initial leg does give the children from rich families an advantage denied to those from less wealthy backgrounds?

Of course "wealth" can give you a leg up (I have never denied this), I doubt many would dispute this, and most would acknowledge that grinding poverty doesn't generally equate with good outcomes in terms of education and career prospects and of course a whole load of other things. I think it also needs to be acknowledged that ones mans wealth is another mans just about getting by. Also without a doubt children from less wealthy background can and do achieve and that some children from wealthy just fail to achieve anything despite having every opportunity.
But let's not forget just because you have money doesn't mean your sending your DC's to an independent school although I suspect the vast majority of those with really serious money ST rich listers multi millionaires etc etc are.

My children went to boarding school and we are not well connected! Sadly our DDs needed work experience in work totally alien to us. They went out and got it. Without us saying or doing anything. I suspect what school they went to was immaterial. They have not been handed everything and, for what it's worth, Harrow School very much supports its Engineers and Medics. They still have to have drive and ambition to get to where they want to go.

Lots of History graduates go on to do grad employment programmes. They are not all looking to teach. Any more than my DD who did MFL wanted to translate all day.

There are plenty of rich children in state grammar schools who have influential parents. There are mega rich in private schools whose children don't need to do much. They are not the norm. The norm is to knuckle down and work. Very few go into politics straight from
University like the Labour leader of Camden Council. Often people with a political background really do get a very good leg up!

Wealth provides many kinds of leg-ups. One of the less appreciated things a good, well-resourced school (in either sector, but availability, sadly, is correlated with parental wealth) can provide is the confidence to know that it's worth working hard - that if you do so, there will be someone to notice, you won't just end up stymied for lack of equipment or staff time or stuck on something noone can help you with.

Just read this sensational headline and when I reached the part that says some schools jumped 1000 places, well, that’s it – it’s curtains; end of reading. I’m not going to subscribe to such nonsense.

But a small correction, sendsummer, Further Maths results A-A for KCL Maths School is 77% and not 58%. Still, it is below Eton’s 80% for the said subject. And how a school that scored only 57% A-A for Physics against Eton’s 76%; a school that doesn’t even offer Chemistry and/or Biology can claim to outperform Eton in STEM can only be described as fantasy!

Eton doesn’t offer A-level Biology. Instead, the School goes for the supposedly 'more difficult' Pre-U Biology which scored the equivalent of 74% A*-A last summer.

So, carry on dreaming, Your Life with your fake news and fake tables!

But Happy many state kids work like Trojans and get nowhere. Often even in grammars in huge classes with limited resources and zero contacts.

Anybody on an income that can afford school fees higher than your average wage can of course prop up and support their DC better than the majority.

Those on low or even average salaries are less likely to be in work that would look that great on a cv or would even allow Tarquin to have a free job handed to him.

We are not poor but will really struggle to top up uni loans or to support our DC after. We both work full time.I will take on another job on top of my full time minimum wage job to ensure they do go to uni but after that they will need to start earning ASAP. We simply don't have the spare £30k a year that used to go on school fees to support them or to enable them to study degrees they enjoy but which don't provide an income.

I really think the huge advantages privately educated children have needs to be recognised and restricted. Those getting a private education are coming from richer and richer families, they get the better and more influential jobs and then make the decisions which suit them. And so it goes on. I think as more and more middle classes are squeezed out of private education a demand for fairness will become louder.

Finally can we stop with the private kids work like Trojans rhetoric. As I said plenty of children do,some just have massive privilege which makes this hard worker easier and gain bigger returns.

Limplettuce the spectrum of parental earnings between state and private is like a Venn diagram with a significant overlap. Also parental influence and connections are not necessarily linked to high earning potential. Think of all those students who chose to do humanities and are earning a relative pittance as journalists but still are pretty well connected to give their DCs advantages in internships etc in starting careers.
Any middle class family provides a cushion for their DCs when careers go wrong even if it is only free lodging.

I work in an inner city comprehensive and we have the full range of kids in sixth form - kids from middle class leafy suburbs to kids who are in care.

One of the biggest hurdles we face is getting able kids from poorer backgrounds who have the ability to be academically successful just to be able to understand and imagine the type of uni courses and careers available to them. If their parents work in minimum wage jobs with poor prospects then we often find it harder to encourage them to understand the range of jobs available as a first step.

I remember when I applied to uni from a state school in the middle of nowhere - I had never even heard of half the courses on offer at uni!

We have a son at private school who is likely to do very well academically but he won't have our financial support to rely on if he chooses to study something that doesn't lead to well paid work. We can't afford to support him. He will have to take on the maximum student loan if he chooses to go to university. He is only at private school because he gets a 100% bursary. 20% of the kids at his school are on bursaries.
So plenty of private school kids won't have mummy and daddy to fall back on or mummy and daddy's connections to rely on.