New teachers strike wtf

[Randy Winkman]

fblm said:

Randy Winkman said:

It's about being encouraged to meet people, go places, try things, screw them up and have another go (or a go at something else) and generally be open minded and tolerant. And they get that from their parents/family/friends.

Obviously none of that is allowed if you go to a private school.

I'm not sure I was saying that .... I was saying that you don't need a private school for that.

[heppers75]

Randy Winkman said:

fblm said:

Randy Winkman said:

It's about being encouraged to meet people, go places, try things, screw them up and have another go (or a go at something else) and generally be open minded and tolerant. And they get that from their parents/family/friends.

Obviously none of that is allowed if you go to a private school.

I'm not sure I was saying that .... I was saying that you don't need a private school for that.

You are spot on Randy you don't. I think the issue I have and others is that some do seem to be arguing that if you do have private education then you are somehow excluded from having that.

[SpeedMattersNot]

heppers75 said:

The upper school to his prep is in the 2013 top 100 for GCSE results nationally and as far as I was able to ascertain the prep is according to The Times is very highly rated.

I am genuinely unsure as to where your antithesis comes from then as to consciously put your child into an environment that is not going to present them the very best opportunities in life to me is bizarre - do you actually have kids yet or is your statement hypothetical?

Also the Prada vs Nike statement is even more bizarre, that is like saying I am going to be elitist but only about the things I care about! As your statement there would be equally derided by someone who thinks that £2 trainers from Primark are just fine.

As it happens I am fortunate enough to be in the position where I work 10 minutes from home, I get to do school pick up and drop off on occasion - tomorrow happens to be one. I get to go to assemblies, concerts and performances. I get to go to Rugby with him and we spend quality time together at home, currently teaching him to play chess. I do travel for work half a dozen or so times a year but nothing too relentless.

I am also not privately educated myself nor is my ability to do these things inherited or won - so we are making our choices for him based on sound experience and from the standpoint of making dam certain he gets the best start in life we can give him. He doesn't have any Prada shoes, although perhaps embarrassingly enough I do! My wife also has an RR Sport and doesn't work so I am probably loosing points there as well

I can also say my confidence in the position he is in right now is based on what I see in the children of his age of friends and acquaintances that are in the schools he would otherwise have to choose from in the state system - approx 6-8 of them spring to mind who are either his school year or older (and he is a mid August child so young for his school year) and for the most part have parents of a similar outlook and view on life as myself and my wife but for reasons not always financial have chosen the state route for education. I can say for the most part his speech is more refined and articulate, his vocabulary is far greater, his thought processes and deduction on general life and social situations is more mature, he is clearly streets ahead in general literacy and numeracy terms and he is definitely more polite and considerate - to the point he even picked up the father of one of his friends for not letting a lady through the door before going through himself last weekend - thankfully he only said something to me and not out loud! FYI none of that is overly proud or boastful parent syndrome, I pride myself on being a very logical and when necessary detached wood for the trees kind of bloke so I am being objective here. Also he is not universally in all areas 'ahead' for instance one of his friends has handwriting at 8 that can only be described as calligraphy! But I can certainly see by and large a significant difference which when you consider he is 7 now and some of these peers I am comparing to are already 9 is to me a very good indicator again of the validity of my choice.

ETA I am not just comparing him either as his school friends are also very clearly the same level(s) above in the same areas and the one occasion this is always obvious is birthday parties as you can literally see the divide in behaviour and demeanour of the two groups, even though they mix and play together even someone who does not know who is who can tell. I even made a game of it with my brother at his last birthday as he is deciding if he can afford to privately educate his son and I said I tell you what you just observe the kids here and outside of the two or three I know you know you tell me which ones are products of the private system and which the state. He got two out of 21 wrong and one of those in September is starting at another local private school as his parents have decided he will be better served than where he is.

Edited by heppers75 on Thursday 27th March 00:51

I do have one daughter, she's only 5 months old though. But I will obviously evaluate all of our options when it comes to it and I guess, if money was no object and there wasn't what I felt was a suitable school locally, I wouldn't have an issue sending her to a private school. But if there was a good local state school I wouldn't have any problem sending her (or any other future children) to that school instead. Bring money into and I don't think I could justify the extra cost if there was a good local state school nearby.

I can tell you're very interested in your son and that's brilliant, but I grew up on a council estate in Hemel Hempstead and even I knew to hold doors open for anyone - not just women!

Do you think your son wouldn't know how to do any of the things he does, if he went to a good state school?

[RYH64E]

SpeedMattersNot said:

I do have one daughter, she's only 5 months old though. But I will obviously evaluate all of our options when it comes to it and I guess, if money was no object and there wasn't what I felt was a suitable school locally, I wouldn't have an issue sending her to a private school. But if there was a good local state school I wouldn't have any problem sending her (or any other future children) to that school instead. Bring money into and I don't think I could justify the extra cost if there was a good local state school nearby.

I can tell you're very interested in your son and that's brilliant, but I grew up on a council estate in Hemel Hempstead and even I knew to hold doors open for anyone - not just women!

Do you think your son wouldn't know how to do any of the things he does, if he went to a good state school?

I too would have been happy to send my kids to a good state school, and to be fair our local state school is pretty good, I just didn't think it was as good as the private alternative in terms of individual attention and trying to maximise the academic achievement of the kids.

We have a Grammar School fairly local, which is a very good school academically, but speaking to the parents of some of the students I was concerned that because it is highly selective it's too intense and too demanding.

It's not an easy decision to make, but very important.

[heppers75]

SpeedMattersNot said:

I do have one daughter, she's only 5 months old though. But I will obviously evaluate all of our options when it comes to it and I guess, if money was no object and there wasn't what I felt was a suitable school locally, I wouldn't have an issue sending her to a private school. But if there was a good local state school I wouldn't have any problem sending her (or any other future children) to that school instead. Bring money into and I don't think I could justify the extra cost if there was a good local state school nearby.

I can tell you're very interested in your son and that's brilliant, but I grew up on a council estate in Hemel Hempstead and even I knew to hold doors open for anyone - not just women!

Do you think your son wouldn't know how to do any of the things he does, if he went to a good state school?

Well where I am I guess the state schools are between average to bloody awful, I also have some insight into them outside of friends etc as my MiL was until she recently retired was the country group bursar for the LEA and was on a number of committees with regards to failing or struggling schools. Of which at one time or another in recent times she was involved with pretty much everyone we would have had a choice of.

Also the facilities, and capabilities of the school my son goes to just outstrip any state school here by factors which are staggering, the results for that school are manifest. I just can't see how anyone who could make the choice would make any different choice when considering the best interests of their child.

If we are playing top trumps I think Mansfield may have Hemel Hempstead beat into a cocked hat as I am from and still have some of my family in a very depressed ex mining community in one of, if not the most god awful places I have been in the UK. Maybe not beaten I guess but I suspect they are at least in many ways similar.

I used one daft example and I can say I would like to say he would have done that regardless but it was just one daft example amongst dozens and dozens, at the end of the day kids behaviours are no mater how hard you try and would like them not to be influenced to a degree by their peers and the influences on my son are for the most part very positive and the influences I see which will and can only have come from outside of the home, as I know their parents of his peers from the state schools clearly to my mind are not. That is because frankly where we are there are no good state schools, everyone of them has at least on sink estate or very "dodgy" area within their catchment so by my definition of good and there are none that could even hold a dimly lit candle to the one he is in on their very best day I am afraid to say.

At the end of the day if you are lucky enough to be in an area that has good state schooling and the local private schools and there is not much in it in results and facilities and general feel terms then I would very possibly not have made the decision I did. However I have friends all over the UK and I would contend those areas are few and far between and we even looked around within a decent radius of where we live as we contemplated relocating but we just couldn't find anything that fit the bill that would have warranted uprooting us as a family.

Edited by heppers75 on Thursday 27th March 16:15

[spud989]

heppers75 said:

spud989 said:

You do what is right by yourself and your family, certainly.

But my point is that action needs to be taken against Gove - he takes with one hand, claims he's feeding with the other, yet the latter is just smoke and mirrors designed to fool Joe Public and the press.

Nothing he has done has changed the standards of behaviour on the ground in your average comp/academy. And behaviour is the single biggest barrier to improvement for many challenging schools.

Last year the school I work in had a GCSE English C+ rate of below 50% (I only joined the school in January 2014 from a nearby academy). I'm confident I can raise standards by August 2014, hopefully by a reasonable degree. Yet I could do a hell of a lot more if I had 5 classes of students in every year that were behaving consistently well and were engaging in their learning rather than 1/2.

Yet Gove would have you believe that since he's come to power he's waved a magic wand that means I have 120 eager meerkats, ready to learn on command, because of a couple of dreamland press releases. He's deluding you all.

Surely behaviour and eagerness is not something that the school can be expected to create, it is something they can nurture but it has to be present to start with.

It has been said before but certainly one of the reasons that those children in private education are better behaved and more eager is the homes they come from will for the most part be instilling that at home first.

Teachers cannot be expected to fix what is in many places a broken society, they can only realistically support not create that especially when I expect for the most part those badly behaved few are learning their bad habits closer to home! Neither teachers or an education secretary can fix that.

Exactly. But Gove expects us to.

[heppers75]

spud989 said:

heppers75 said:

spud989 said:

You do what is right by yourself and your family, certainly.

But my point is that action needs to be taken against Gove - he takes with one hand, claims he's feeding with the other, yet the latter is just smoke and mirrors designed to fool Joe Public and the press.

Nothing he has done has changed the standards of behaviour on the ground in your average comp/academy. And behaviour is the single biggest barrier to improvement for many challenging schools.

Last year the school I work in had a GCSE English C+ rate of below 50% (I only joined the school in January 2014 from a nearby academy). I'm confident I can raise standards by August 2014, hopefully by a reasonable degree. Yet I could do a hell of a lot more if I had 5 classes of students in every year that were behaving consistently well and were engaging in their learning rather than 1/2.

Yet Gove would have you believe that since he's come to power he's waved a magic wand that means I have 120 eager meerkats, ready to learn on command, because of a couple of dreamland press releases. He's deluding you all.

Surely behaviour and eagerness is not something that the school can be expected to create, it is something they can nurture but it has to be present to start with.

It has been said before but certainly one of the reasons that those children in private education are better behaved and more eager is the homes they come from will for the most part be instilling that at home first.

Teachers cannot be expected to fix what is in many places a broken society, they can only realistically support not create that especially when I expect for the most part those badly behaved few are learning their bad habits closer to home! Neither teachers or an education secretary can fix that.

Exactly. But Gove expects us to.

If folks want to keep adding even more fuel to the fire as to why those that have the option choose to extract their children from a system that is screwed six ways from Sunday in numerous ways that have been mentioned on here and the Gove thread then press on.

Frankly what astonishes me at this point is why there people are not saying I will sacrifice anything and everything to make sure my child is not exposed to such a system rather than deriding those that do!

[Mr Snap]

heppers75 said:

If folks want to keep adding even more fuel to the fire as to why those that have the option choose to extract their children from a system that is screwed six ways from Sunday in numerous ways that have been mentioned on here and the Gove thread then press on.

Frankly what astonishes me at this point is why there people are not saying I will sacrifice anything and everything to make sure my child is not exposed to such a system rather than deriding those that do!

Nobody (well, at least me) is arguing you should forego the benefits of private education for your kids. I object when public school educated children then gain additional benefits within the, taxpayer funded, further education system.

Do you feel that in future a 'better prepared' child from a public school should have an advantage over a less well prepared but more gifted child from a state school?

I hope I'm not misrepresenting him but I think Turbobloke would say that this is ok because life isn't fair and you can't inject fairness into a intrinsically unfair system. Now, I'd probably agree with that if I was a Norman landowner in 1067 but we've moved on from that.

As a taxpayer, I believe that the finest education should be reserved for the students with most potential, not those who've merely had the best leg up. I'm not against leg ups; I'm against a system paid for by everyone but in which the rewards are demonstrably unfair. If Turbobloke wanted to send his children to a better private university and to pay fully for the privilege, I'd be perfectly happy for that university to have unfair entrance procedures. But he seems to want the best of both worlds.

That kind of unfairness can be driven out of the system and I think that if you thought about it in less personal terms, that's what you'd prefer too - especially if you didn't have your current advantages. If you weren't able to send your children to private school and you knew that your children were disadvantaged by this I think you'd be unhappy. If your brilliant child was disqualified from the university place he/she deserved simply because a Rupert was better briefed for the interview and took the place he/she deserved, I suspect that you might be on the other side of the argument.

[heppers75]

Mr Snap said:

heppers75 said:

If folks want to keep adding even more fuel to the fire as to why those that have the option choose to extract their children from a system that is screwed six ways from Sunday in numerous ways that have been mentioned on here and the Gove thread then press on.

Frankly what astonishes me at this point is why there people are not saying I will sacrifice anything and everything to make sure my child is not exposed to such a system rather than deriding those that do!

Nobody (well, at least me) is arguing you should forego the benefits of private education for your kids. I object when public school educated children then gain additional benefits within the, taxpayer funded, further education system.

Do you feel that in future a 'better prepared' child from a public school should have an advantage over a less well prepared but more gifted child from a state school?

I hope I'm not misrepresenting him but I think Turbobloke would say that this is ok because life isn't fair and you can't inject fairness into a intrinsically unfair system. Now, I'd probably agree with that if I was a Norman landowner in 1067 but we've moved on from that.

As a taxpayer, I believe that the finest education should be reserved for the students with most potential, not those who've merely had the best leg up. I'm not against leg ups; I'm against a system paid for by everyone but in which the rewards are demonstrably unfair. If Turbobloke wanted to send his children to a better private university and to pay fully for the privilege, I'd be perfectly happy for that university to have unfair entrance procedures. But he seems to want the best of both worlds.

That kind of unfairness can be driven out of the system and I think that if you thought about it in less personal terms, that's what you'd prefer too - especially if you didn't have your current advantages. If you weren't able to send your children to private school and you knew that your children were disadvantaged by this I think you'd be unhappy. If your brilliant child was disqualified from the university place he/she deserved simply because a Rupert was better briefed for the interview and took the place he/she deserved, I suspect that you might be on the other side of the argument.

Actually on one level I agree with you but there are some holes in this to my eyes.

Firstly I am actually continuing to contribute just as much to a system I am not participating in as I do not get any sort of tax break because of my choice not to avail myself of a state funded system (same goes for healthcare). So I could reasonably make an argument that says that as I have funded a state place (via my taxes) I did not use for 13 years then I have banked some credit for the further education part no? I am not making that argument FYI I am saying I could.

Secondly I would cheerfully pay for my son to have the absolute best university education as well, frankly if that was a possibility the people that are up in arms about private education up to A'level would probably combust if I could buy a better university education as well!

Thirdly surely one of the aspects for admission should be how well prepared someone is? What is wrong with that? I can be pretty sure in 25 years or so I will have lost out on say a promotion or a consultancy job to someone else because they interviewed better even though they were less qualified for the job. Sorry that is just life! To bleat about unfairness there is sorry just sour grapes, do a better job of being prepared so next time you don't lose out.

Also FYI I did not have those advantages and I just got the f**k on with it and worked my nuts off, so I know it is possible I am living and breathing proof of it. I am not resentful of those that had an easier ride (possibly) than I did to get to where I am - why should I be? I will make damn certain that my son does not have to do it the hard way though and that is a right I have earned and will execute regardless of the prejudice and narrow mindedness that thinks it is unfair!

ETA I did not answer your question directly sorry - No I do not think that simply because they went to a private school they should have, however I think that IF that private school made them better prepared and come across better then that is a part of the selection which should take place and is perfectly fine.

Edited by heppers75 on Thursday 27th March 18:45

[RYH64E]

Mr Snap said:

Nobody (well, at least me) is arguing you should forego the benefits of private education for your kids. I object when public school educated children then gain additional benefits within the, taxpayer funded, further education system.

Surely tuition fees must cover a lot of the cost of further education?

[steve singh]

Work shy feckers

[turbobloke]

Mr Snap said:

heppers75 said:

If folks want to keep adding even more fuel to the fire as to why those that have the option choose to extract their children from a system that is screwed six ways from Sunday in numerous ways that have been mentioned on here and the Gove thread then press on.

Frankly what astonishes me at this point is why there people are not saying I will sacrifice anything and everything to make sure my child is not exposed to such a system rather than deriding those that do!

Nobody (well, at least me) is arguing you should forego the benefits of private education for your kids. I object when public school educated children then gain additional benefits within the, taxpayer funded, further education system.

Do you feel that in future a 'better prepared' child from a public school should have an advantage over a less well prepared but more gifted child from a state school?

I hope I'm not misrepresenting him but I think Turbobloke would say that this is ok because life isn't fair and you can't inject fairness into a intrinsically unfair system. Now, I'd probably agree with that if I was a Norman landowner in 1067 but we've moved on from that.

Not quite what I would say. I would say, as I've said before in this thread, that there are disadvantage levels of equal magnitude for some pupils associated with being state educated in Bournemouth or Gloucester compared to Nottingham or Grimsby, which feed on into the state funded further and higher education systems. I would then ask why it is that the independent sector advantage where it exists, which arises from parents facing a weak state sector paying twice in effect, causes so much angst compared to the geographical advantage where nobody has paid a penny. There are studies and articles aplenty on one more than the other, people's backs are up more over one than the other, which suggests that in fact it's not the advantage or the inequality that causes gills to froth, it's the class ridden shoulder chip reaction to anything associated with familial wealth.

Mr Snap said:

As a taxpayer, I believe that the finest education should be reserved for the students with most potential, not those who've merely had the best leg up.

Me too which is partly why I'm opposed to quotas.

Mr Snap said:

I'm not against leg ups; I'm against a system paid for by everyone but in which the rewards are demonstrably unfair.

Then protest equally vigorously against the geographical unfairness in the state sector alone, which doesn't involve an unfairness against some parents who pay tax and then pay fees on top. If you did, your protestations about fairness and equality as unrelated to the perceived class system would be more credible.

Even so, equality is one thing, fairness is another, if the latter is in place then the former is always under threat.

Mr Snap said:

If Turbobloke wanted to send his children to a better private university and to pay fully for the privilege, I'd be perfectly happy for that university to have unfair entrance procedures. But he seems to want the best of both worlds.

Not at all, like you I want limited places which cost taxpayers a lot of money to go to those most suited to them and capable of benefiting from them. I'm not concerned with equality as it's a distraction in this context, I remain concerned with fairness. As such, a pupil at a comprehensive with BBB at A-level who is assumed by socially aware types to be more worthy than a BBB from an independent school and let in on the basis of assumptions and potentially flawed judgement is exactly the unfairness you seem to be against but then say nothing by way of criticism.

Mr Snap said:

That kind of unfairness can be driven out of the system and I think that if you thought about it in less personal terms, that's what you'd prefer too - especially if you didn't have your current advantages.

If the alternative process to taking grades at face value involves a greater unfairness predicated on assumptions of worth based on social constructs and administered by politically polarised people with a social agenda drum to beat, then the cure is as bad as the disease.

Mr Snap said:

If you weren't able to send your children to private school and you knew that your children were disadvantaged by this I think you'd be unhappy.

It depends on the quality of state education available to whoever it is you're referring to.

Mr Snap said:

If your brilliant child was disqualified from the university place he/she deserved simply because a Rupert was better briefed for the interview and took the place he/she deserved, I suspect that you might be on the other side of the argument.

If an able independent pupil called Rupert was denied a university place on the basis of armwaving social justice notions that declared using wisdom drawn from the ether that Dwayne from Dockside Comp was automatically more deserving then I'd be just as unhappy, which I am with the nonsensical social engineering quota approach to university entrance that those afflicted with egalitarian delusion are forcing through.

[anonymous-user]

I'm curious as to why Snaps problem is with kids from private schools. Is the issue not exactly the same between good and bad state schools?

[turbobloke]

fblm said:

I'm curious as to why Snaps problem is with kids from private schools. Is the issue not exactly the same between good and bad state schools?

[Rovinghawk]

Mr Snap said:

I object when public school educated children then gain additional benefits within the, taxpayer funded, further education system.

So those who have privately educated their children at their own rather than state expense shouldn't be allowed some state-funded education for their kids later?
Yet those who've had a share earlier somehow have a greater entitlement to a further share later?

[steve singh]

Rovinghawk said:

Mr Snap said:

I object when public school educated children then gain additional benefits within the, taxpayer funded, further education system.

So those who have privately educated their children at their own rather than state expense shouldn't be allowed some state-funded education for their kids later?
Yet those who've had a share earlier somehow have a greater entitlement to a further share later?

I do believe that is what he is suggesting - haven 't quite worked out the logic of his reasoning though!

[turbobloke]

steve singh said:

Rovinghawk said:

Mr Snap said:

I object when public school educated children then gain additional benefits within the, taxpayer funded, further education system.

So those who have privately educated their children at their own rather than state expense shouldn't be allowed some state-funded education for their kids later?
Yet those who've had a share earlier somehow have a greater entitlement to a further share later?

I do believe that is what he is suggesting - haven 't quite worked out the logic of his reasoning though!

[Mr Snap]

Sorry, no time to respond fully at the moment.

Not quite the point I was making but not a million miles away, here's some food for thought from The Master of Wellington (and ex Head of Brighton College, recently voted the top Independent School, I believe):

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/education/10948378....

Brighton Argus 20th Jan

"In a report for the Social Market Foundation think-tank, The Master at Wellington College in Berkshire said the move was essential to close the “unfair” gap in achievement between the richest and poorest.
The 60-year-old said: “We have to end this unfair farce whereby middle-class parents dominate the best schools, when they could afford to pay and even boast of their moral superiority in using the state system when all they are doing is squeezing out the poor from the best schools.”
Laying out his proposal Dr Seldon said families with a combined income of £80,000 should be charged if their child attends an oversubscribed school.
Those earning £200,000 a year would be forced to pay £20,000 a year for secondary schools and £15,000 for primary schools.
The amounts are equivalent to what it would cost at private schools.
He added it is only fair that if parents can afford to pay for better schooling, which they have secured by using their sharp elbows to monopolise the best schools, then they should be made to do so. He said: “Instead of estate agents and private tutors getting rich let’s put this money into the state system.
“The more parents earn the more they should pay”.
Explaining his fears in the report, he said the waste of talent was harming the country’s economic progress.
The finger was largely pointed at wealthy parents who he said creamed the places at the best state schools by buying houses in the local catchment area and then paying for private tutoring to ensure their children passed the entry exam if required.
As part of his proposal he also said more private schools should sponsor state academies.
He concluded: “Britain will be in debt for many years to come. We should be looking for every possible source of extra funds to come into public services and state schooling is the last great bastion holding out against the principle of payment.”

Edited for typos.

[V8 Fettler]

Mr Snap said:

Sorry, no time to respond fully at the moment.

Not quite the point I was making but not a million miles away, here's some food for thought from The Master of Wellington (and ex Head of Brighton College, recently voted the top Independent School, I believe):

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/education/10948378....

Brighton Argus 20th Jan

"In a report for the Social Market Foundation think-tank, The Master at Wellington College in Berkshire said the move was essential to close the “unfair” gap in achievement between the richest and poorest.
The 60-year-old said: “We have to end this unfair farce whereby middle-class parents dominate the best schools, when they could afford to pay and even boast of their moral superiority in using the state system when all they are doing is squeezing out the poor from the best schools.”
Laying out his proposal Dr Seldon said families with a combined income of £80,000 should be charged if their child attends an oversubscribed school.
Those earning £200,000 a year would be forced to pay £20,000 a year for secondary schools and £15,000 for primary schools.
The amounts are equivalent to what it would cost at private schools.
He added it is only fair that if parents can afford to pay for better schooling, which they have secured by using their sharp elbows to monopolise the best schools, then they should be made to do so. He said: “Instead of estate agents and private tutors getting rich let’s put this money into the state system.
“The more parents earn the more they should pay”.
Explaining his fears in the report, he said the waste of talent was harming the country’s economic progress.
The finger was largely pointed at wealthy parents who he said creamed the places at the best state schools by buying houses in the local catchment area and then paying for private tutoring to ensure their children passed the entry exam if required.
As part of his proposal he also said more private schools should sponsor state academies.
He concluded: “Britain will be in debt for many years to come. We should be looking for every possible source of extra funds to come into public services and state schooling is the last great bastion holding out against the principle of payment.”

Edited for typos.

They already do, via the tax system. This bloke is a head master??!! Pay once and then pay again.

[RYH64E]

Mr Snap said:

“We have to end this unfair farce whereby middle-class parents dominate the best schools, when they could afford to pay and even boast of their moral superiority in using the state system when all they are doing is squeezing out the poor from the best schools.”

What do you think would happen if we moved all the middle class kids from the best schools to the ones that the 'poor' send their children to, and at the same time moved the kids from poor families to the current 'best' alternative? I think you'd find a rapid deterioration in the results of the 'best' schools coupled with a simultaneous improvement in the standards at the poor kids former schools.

The schools are only partly responsible for the results, it's the children and their parents that have the largest effect, imo.