Private and state school pupils’ GCSE results are now the same, study finds

[IrisOlympia]

Interesting new study - thoughts?

www.theguardian.com/education/2024/nov/21/private-and-state-school-pupils-gcse-results-are-now-the-same-study-finds

Thing is that while good grades enable students to get over the next hurdle they don't exactly equip them for life.

What private schools and educated parents do (in different ways) is supply cultural capital, confidence and connections. I think that as a nation we should stop obsessing about disparities in GCSE results between state and private and put all the focus on early years and even pre conception.

This is when the divisions start to appear.

In Scotland poorer students generate extra funding for schools ‘pupil equity funding’ that must be spent in ways to improve their outcomes. Schools often have trouble spending this money because the real need for these pupils is not within the control of the school. It is about support for young parents, housing, ambition of the community, etc.

At our local school, PP is high. They have extra money and they struggle to spend it.

They want PP children to be in school at least 92% of the time, which is the same as the non PP.

However, they are not actually dealing with the issues.... PP families are more likely to be single parent households, have children with SEN, have less educated parents, live in worse areas, worse housing, have more children, less access to transport, have mental health issues, more likely to have SEN themselves, often they also put no value in education... All of these issues work against them in getting their children to school.

You can throw thousands of pounds at these children, but if they are not in school and are not supported to learn, it is just wasted money.

But academic results between state and private are not the same on the whole. It's comparing like for like that's the same. The kids from poorest backgrounds still do worse than kids from wealthier backgrounds, so investing in schools in areas of high deprivation is still necessary.

Why? We have just established the results are down to parents not school. So if investment is needed it is in the community, in mental health, in housing, in employment opportunities…

The Oxford thing is particularly unfair to students at state selective schools like grammar schools

In fact a student at a less selective independent will be at a relative advantage.

It's pretty obvious that if a school is selective for academic ability on entry their results will be higher.

One of my children at a super selective grammar (literally thousands take the test) tried pointing out to an admissions tutor that he would judge her gcse results more highly if she had been taught in smaller classes at any of the independents in her area and he got quite angry. That's because deep down they must know it doesn't hold together well as a policy.

literally thousands take the test)
Maybe 2k( Wilson, QE) but not...thousands...

Are you aware that the state is funding many places for EHCP kids in private schools?

Also, private schools will not accept funded place unless they can accommodation the needs of that child.

It’s routinely over 3000 sit for QE (for 180 places) so the poster isn’t exaggerating

Private, non-specialist, schools definitely do not have the range of SEN and mainstream state school would contend with. I do not know a single, non-specialist, private school that takes children with learning disabilities for example. Nor a child with a high degree of distressed behaviours. Private schools tend to take children whose main needs are addressed by smaller class sizes, calmer environments or a reader/scribe in an exam.

Where is the source of that information?- curious

I know a mum who has a son with learning difficulties that stems from brain problems with processing sound and he was accepted at a private school that gov paid for. Apart from it he is a very capable boy wit h mild ASD

There are many SEN kids in private and grammar schools. And it is a range of reasons. Of course they are not taking children delayed with the curriculum

I didn’t say learning difficulties, I said learning disability.

That hearing issue is a disability.
Poor boy.
I think that there are instances like him. Not a lot but still are

I taught at QE but places like Atom learning also publish the figures. Some schools (like my local super selective) tell you themselves if your child passes.

The "Oxford thing" to look at students in the context of their school is only one of the indicators though, and won't generate a contextual offer on its own.

My DD went to a "below national average results" state comp and had a number of personal reasons that we thought might qualify her for a contextual offer.
She still didn't get one.

The example you give of small class independent vs super selective grammar isn't really relevant because both fail to hit the threshold for a contextual offer on this measure alone. It doesn't really matter that one is slightly higher. The point of the measure is to highlight students who did significantly better than their peer group, not how much better they do.

I agree with your point very strongly.

But I am not sure the study does show its just parents.

I know that at my school, PP children don't do as well as the PP national average and there are schools whose PP children do way better than ours, as this data is available. So the school you go to does have an impact on pp children's chances.

It's to do with getting a critical mass of funding within school to provide meaningful support, if you have low pp numbers its hard to achieve that. So it's partly school funding. The amount per chikd is low so it's only useful added together

But it is is also linked to your point, in that outside agencies centre support in areas with more need overall. So we don't have some of the succesful out of school social schemes that are running in other areas to back us up.

They aren’t in my local city- there is a huge difference locally between the performance in private vs state schools at GCSE level.

Do you mean adjusted for socio-economic factors (as is the case in this report)?
If so, could you link to this information?

It's not a contextual offer I am talking about but judging the student's gcse grades relative to others at their school. That becomes selective versus non selective rather than state versus independent.

And the most selective schools are grammars (in non grammar areas) as because they are free so many children take the tests.

They do have advantages (working at a faster pace, hard working cohort, less disruption) but the per pupil funding is not greater so there is no comparison to a good independent in terms of class size, personal attention for catching up, or uni prep or getting essays marked etc.

Auditory processing disorder may be a disability but it is not a learning disability.

But it affects his learning. He has EHCP of course

Btw... Just on another note, not related to the number candidates, I know a boy who got into QE. I would not define him as a non disruptive kid. Actually, a very challenging behaviour. His parenta are Indian and they really wanted him to get to the top of the top

But not a learning disability. Learning disabled means an IQ of less than 70.

But judging the student's grades relative to others at their school is only used for contextualisation.
The difference between the same grades at super selective grammar versus small classes private school is unlikely to be significant enough to make a difference between getting an interview/offer at Oxford versus not. Going to a failing comp in a deprived area, might.