Public school education for low income families

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Socially integrated groups unrecognisable through uniform..........or special units in the corners of the school grounds?

[ProfessorDavey]

Socially integrated groups unrecognisable through uniform..........or special units in the corners of the school grounds?

Sounds a bit like the old assisted places scheme back in the 80s (I think).

There was extensive research on the outcomes of pupils in three categories - those that paid full fees, those that had part of their fees covered and those that had all fees covered.

Although during their actually schooling there was very little difference, later the divisions became increasingly apparent, with those in the full fee paying category more likely to get into the best universities, more likely to walk into top jobs afterwards and more likely to earn the most. With those having full fees covered being least likely. So there was actually very little lasting effect on social mobility.

The reason - it is all the other advantages of coming from a privileged background that are key - the network of old chums of Dad that gets you the internship, the quiet word at the club with the Chair of a big bank for a bit of 'advice' which results in opportunities. The notion that you rub shoulders (not at school necessarily but in extra-curricular activities that are totally unaffordable to those on assisted places) with the kids of other 'great and good'.

And of course this isn't independent schools offering places free - it is independent schools offering places provided that the tax payer stumps up considerable amounts of money. That sucks money out of the state system, which is already creaking through under-funding. And of course any assisted places scheme at independent schools will only be available to a tiny, tiny minority of kids.

A better idea would be to remove charitable status from independent schools and hypothecate the increases tax take to state schools.

[splashscuba]

Sounds a bit like the old assisted places scheme back in the 80s (I think).

There was extensive research on the outcomes of pupils in three categories - those that paid full fees, those that had part of their fees covered and those that had all fees covered.

Although during their actually schooling there was very little difference, later the divisions became increasingly apparent, with those in the full fee paying category more likely to get into the best universities, more likely to walk into top jobs afterwards and more likely to earn the most. With those having full fees covered being least likely. So there was actually very little lasting effect on social mobility.

The reason - it is all the other advantages of coming from a privileged background that are key - the network of old chums of Dad that gets you the internship, the quiet word at the club with the Chair of a big bank for a bit of 'advice' which results in opportunities. The notion that you rub shoulders (not at school necessarily but in extra-curricular activities that are totally unaffordable to those on assisted places) with the kids of other 'great and good'.

And of course this isn't independent schools offering places free - it is independent schools offering places provided that the tax payer stumps up considerable amounts of money. That sucks money out of the state system, which is already creaking through under-funding. And of course any assisted places scheme at independent schools will only be available to a tiny, tiny minority of kids.

A better idea would be to remove charitable status from independent schools and hypothecate the increases tax take to state schools.

It's also skimming the brightest and most motivated from the comp system. They aren't taking those that are least motivated.

[floo]

The least motivated are unlikely to do well in whatever school they are placed, imo.

[splashscuba]

The least motivated are unlikely to do well in whatever school they are placed, imo.

That's pretty negative Floo.

[floo]

That's pretty negative Floo.

But sadly true, imo.

[Hope]

... the network of old chums of Dad that gets you the internship, the quiet word at the club with the Chair of a big bank for a bit of 'advice' which results in opportunities. The notion that you rub shoulders (not at school necessarily but in extra-curricular activities that are totally unaffordable to those on assisted places) with the kids of other 'great and good'.

I know several folk who have succeeded despite the 'old chums of Dad'; because of the 'old chums of Mum'; the lack of any such 'chums'. 

And of course this isn't independent schools offering places free - it is independent schools offering places provided that the tax payer stumps up considerable amounts of money. That sucks money out of the state system, which is already creaking through under-funding. And of course any assisted places scheme at independent schools will only be available to a tiny, tiny minority of kids.

The present request is for the amount that it costs a state school to educate a child; so It's not so much sucking the money out, just redistributing it.  All that said, I still believe that independent schools should be getting to back to their original aims - often as grammar schools - to educate those who aren't among the elite.

A better idea would be to remove charitable status from independent schools and hypothecate the increases tax take to state schools.

A better idea would be to start moving away from the idea that academic ability is all that matters.  That, if anything, is one advantage of independent schools.  Schools might then start to look at how they can best cater for the needs of all pupils.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know several folk who have succeeded despite the 'old chums of Dad'; because of the 'old chums of Mum'; the lack of any such 'chums'.

Oh no another of Hope's endless list of anecdotes that prove absolutely nothing.

The present request is for the amount that it costs a state school to educate a child; so It's not so much sucking the money out, just redistributing it.

Not so, even if it is simply the amount per pupil.

Schools have fixed costs (that don't vary on the basis of the number of pupils) and variable costs (that do vary with number of pupils). Remove some kids and their funding and the fixed costs remain, so the school suffers financially.

Actually many nominally variable costs are quasi-fixed. Lose 3 pupils and their funding - you can't reduce teacher numbers so you have to absorb that financial hit somehow.

All that said, I still believe that independent schools should be getting to back to their original aims - often as grammar schools - to educate those who aren't among the elite.

Some did, many didn't and have always been unashamedly elitist. But actually for those who used to cater as you described, the rug was pulled from under them when universal free education came in.

[Hope]

That's pretty negative Floo.

But sadly very true, splash.  Modern education is far too academically-weighted.  Schools need to cater for the needs of the pupils, not require them to attain levels they aren't capable of.  After all, we will always need bin-men & road-sweepers, brickies & leccies, ; as well as doctors, dentists & nurses, lawyers, academics, ...

[Hope]

Oh no another of Hope's endless list of anecdotes that prove absolutely nothing.

Yet much of the other stuff you quote is little more than anecdote.

Not so, even if it is simply the amount per pupil.

Schools have fixed costs (that don't vary on the basis of the number of pupils) and variable costs (that do vary with number of pupils). Remove some kids and their funding and the fixed costs remain, so the school suffers financially.

Actually many nominally variable costs are quasi-fixed. Lose 3 pupils and their funding - you can't reduce teacher numbers so you have to absorb that financial hit somehow.

I know all about that side of the equation - I've been a school governor and a teacher; but it isn't the only bit of the equation.  If there was wider subject scope, it would allow for better provision for pupils for whom the academic side is problematic.

Some did, many didn't and have always been unashamedly elitist. But actually for those who used to cater as you described, the rug was pulled from under them when universal free education came in.

So people claim, yet there remain a number of such schools 70-odd years down the line.

[ProfessorDavey]

But sadly very true, splash.  Modern education is far too academically-weighted.  Schools need to cater for the needs of the pupils, not require them to attain levels they aren't capable of.  After all, we will always need bin-men & road-sweepers, brickies & leccies, ; as well as doctors, dentists & nurses, lawyers, academics, ...

Point is that compared to perhaps 50 years ago there are far fewer low skill jobs, and in many cases those low skill jobs have been undercut by other countries where costs of labour are a fraction of ours. So we need to 'up-skill' not 'down-skill'. And we really need to move away from this outdate notion of 'academic' and 'non academic' - increasingly jobs we previously saw as 'technical' require a completely different skill set. So once upon a time to operate a lathe you need to be trained in operating a lathe - now you need to be computer literate because the lathe is operated by a computer and the operator needs to programme that computer.

We let down our kids if we don't provide them with practical skills they need, but we also let them down if we fail to provide them with the underpinning academic abilities needed today. Remember too that few people these days will join a firm at 16 and stay with them until they retire - most people now have perhaps 3 or 4 stages to their career, and therefore they need the core 'transferable' skills that are the hallmark of academic education to be able to easily move between careers rather than end up on the scrap heap as the job they were 'trained' for disappears, either to another country or to increased automation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yet much of the other stuff you quote is little more than anecdote.

Such as.

When I provide some personal experience I tend to make it clear that it is just that - personal experience, not necessarily suggestive of a general position. Where I want to provide a general view I tend to use actual evidence, such as that I mentioned (will need to dig out the details) on the research conducted on social mobility for pupils at independent schools on the assisted places scheme compared to full fee paying.

I know all about that side of the equation - I've been a school governor and a teacher; but it isn't the only bit of the equation.  If there was wider subject scope, it would allow for better provision for pupils for whom the academic side is problematic.

I don't doubt that you do given your experience. I'm not a school teacher, but I am a school governor and also the challenges of funding within universities aren't that dissimilar to schools.

I disagree on the point of academic study - we need to find the way to provide a basic core level of academic attainment for all pupils (as a number of other countries seem to do more successfully than we do) - we fail pupils if we don't because they will struggle in the modern world if we don't. The notion that we should say 'hey he isn't very good at maths, doesn't matter just do some woodwork instead' shows a horrific paucity of ambition and fails that student.

So people claim, yet there remain a number of such schools 70-odd years down the line.

I guess they must exist somewhere, kind of like hen's teeth I guess.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is another element to this and that is supporting social mobility through contextualised offers for university places. Universities are terrified of doing this due to the fear of right wing media backlash of social engineering, but the evidence in support is overwhelming.

Universities offer places on courses not on the basis of a reward for getting some nice grades, but on the basis of assessing the potential of the student to do well on the course and to benefit from that course. Sure A level grades are a good predictor of potential on the degree programme but there is incontrovertible evidence that when you match A level results for cohorts of state school pupils and independent school pupils that the state school pupils do appreciable better in their final degree results.

So I'm currently looking at the data for  pretty well every single student who entered university in 2010 and graduated in 2013 - 130,000 students.

Now they looked at students entering the same university with the same A level grades from either state schools or independent schools and looked at their likelihood of achieving a first or 2i.

So enter with BBB from an independent school and the likelihood of getting a first or 2i is 60%, come from a state school with BBB and the likelihood is 70%. The same is true up and down the A level grades.

Turn it on its head and ask the question - if I want to recruit students with a 60% likelihood of achieving a first or 2i what grades should I ask for - well you'd ask BBB for independent school pupils and BCC from state schools. Each set of pupils have the same potential to be successful on the degree. Same thing for a 70% chance of achieving a first or 2i, you'd need to ask ABB for independent school pupils, but BBB for the state schools kids.

And the interesting thing is that the difference is purely about state vs independent school. The analysis looked at all types of state school and there was no difference - a BBB pupil from a community school had the same potential as one from a faith school, a BBB pupil from a state school in a leafy middle class area had the same potential as one from an inner city sink school etc.

But will universities do this - nope they are too scared, although it would actually be the reverse of social engineering, it would level the playing field, removing unfair advantage to independent school pupils rather than provide unfair advantage to state school pupils.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38258454

Oh right! This what your thread is about.

My first question is, is this the most important thread on the forum?

My second question is, do the Tories actually care about this country?

My third question is, actually it is a plea, Splash can you please change your bloody avatar.

My fourth question is, what exactly do you mean Prof by the terms, up-skill and down-skill.

My fifth question is to Floo and Splash, who exactly is doing the motivating?

My sixth question is to Hope,

But sadly very true, splash.  Modern education is far too academically-weighted.  Schools need to cater for the needs of the pupils, not require them to attain levels they aren't capable of.  After all, we will always need bin-men & road-sweepers, brickies & leccies, ; as well as doctors, dentists & nurses, lawyers, academics, ...

What do you mean by academically weighted, the hairs on the back of my neck are bristling at the above, why is that?

Enough of the questions already!!

This country needs to wake up! Government/politicians are fucking about with our kids education, not just Tory politicians, all politicians, and we are allowing them to do it.

The above link is all about money, and there should never be a £ sign in front of our kids education, it is all about investing in the future.

Morning time, man flu infested rant over.

Gonnagle.

[Harrowby Hall]

The above link is all about money, and there should never be a £ sign in front of our kids education, it is all about investing in the future.

Gonnagle.

Dear Gonners

You have answered your own question. It is about money.

According to the UK government, the peak of human attainment, the highest intellectual, cultural and artistic achievement in the history of the world was ...

    .... the invention of cost accounting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Morning time, man flu infested rant over.

Gonnagle.

Morning Mr G, sorry to hear you are under the weather.

[splashscuba]

But sadly true, imo.

Then they need motivating.

[Brownie]

Grammer schools are supposed to exist to help bright kids from low income homes.

Public schools have always given financial help to those who pass the entrance but can't afford fees.  In my day, there were state 'grammer school places', and as someone above mentioned, later on there were assisted places, and bursaries and scholarships have always been awarded by the schools.  I've known lots of kids who received one or other of the above.

So it sounds much the same as it has always been.

[floo]

We have had experience of independent/grammar/comprehensive Schools. During his teaching career my husband taught in all three categories. A good comprehensive school, and there are many, is as good, if not better, than independent and grammar schools. When my husband was a secondary school head he said many of the staff he had encountered in the independent and grammar schools in which he had taught would not have been considered by him as good enough for his comprehensive school. Many of the teachers, with one or two exceptions, at the Ladies College I attended, were hopeless teachers to say the least. The Latin master thought he was the ghost of a prophet!