Fairness and 'social mobility'

[speedyman]

I truly believe that state education will never be as good as the private sector until class sizes are reduced to the same levels.

It stands to reason that each pupil would get more one to one time by reducing numbers. I also believe it would cut down some of the disruption which can take place in large classes. It's also easy to "hide" and just look out of the window in a large class room.


Will it ever happen is another question.


speedyman

[HundredthIdiot]

HundredthIdiot said:

I don't really think that academic achievers need cossetting in a separate school. They just need a calm classroom atmosphere and some decent teaching.

otolith said:

Either the comprehensive state system is not providing that, or that is not sufficient. It also seems to me that a school where bright children are the majority rather than the minority will be better able to accommodate their particular needs.

I don't see the reason for segregating at the school level - it makes a certain things harder (like moving kids between streams) without any benefit.

HundredthIdiot said:

If the universities are doing their job right they'll be selecting candidates based on aptitude not school test results.

otolith said:

They should be selecting the most able, irrespective of how they got there. Fudging university selection just hides the failings of the state sector. The employment market will have no such generosity.

No, they should be selecting those who will achieve the most through their studies at the university, regardless of what went on before. For this reason, at my uni (Bristol) the admissions people for my course (computer science) took no account of specific computing skills in admissions, because they believed that the quality of computing teaching in secondary schools was too inconsistent to be a good indicator.

HundredthIdiot said:

I care more about the academic outcomes of those currently failing in the system. There are far too many kids who leave school almost illiterate and innumerate.

otolith said:

I would like to see every child enabled to maximise his potential.

As would I, but those at the top of the academic tree at secondary level are going to succeed in life regardless, since our society (quite reasonably) rewards those people well and their future is therefore not something that loses me any sleep.

[RichB]

markh1973 said:

...our school had a worse drug problem than the secondary modern or comps nearby - mainly due to the kids at grammar school coming, in the main, from more middle class richer backgrounds...

Not sure I follow you logic here but if you are saying middle class families produce more drug users I would disagree. Certainly drug use by school children seems more prevalent in deprived areas which would suggest that it is not a middle class phenomena.

[otolith]

HundredthIdiot said:

I don't really think that academic achievers need cossetting in a separate school. They just need a calm classroom atmosphere and some decent teaching.

otolith said:

Either the comprehensive state system is not providing that, or that is not sufficient. It also seems to me that a school where bright children are the majority rather than the minority will be better able to accommodate their particular needs.

HundredthIdiot said:

I don't see the reason for segregating at the school level - it makes a certain things harder (like moving kids between streams) without any benefit.

Why then, if the comprehensive system works, is the gulf in academic performance to the private schools so great? Is it all down to genetics and upbringing? If so, and those kids are doomed always to underperform, what is the justification for easing their entry into higher education? That can't be right.

HundredthIdiot said:

If the universities are doing their job right they'll be selecting candidates based on aptitude not school test results.

otolith said:

They should be selecting the most able, irrespective of how they got there. Fudging university selection just hides the failings of the state sector. The employment market will have no such generosity.

HundredthIdiot said:

No, they should be selecting those who will achieve the most through their studies at the university, regardless of what went on before. For this reason, at my uni (Bristol) the admissions people for my course (computer science) took no account of specific computing skills in admissions, because they believed that the quality of computing teaching in secondary schools was too inconsistent to be a good indicator.

But they would have taken account of how well candidates performed in their A-levels, both as evidence of their aptitude to study but also as an indicator of their current competence - which in many subjects is relevant to how well they will perform as an undergrad. It doesn't matter, for instance, that you did awfully well to scrape a D in mathematics when your personal circumstances are taken into account, if you are going to need excellent maths just to keep up with the course.

HundredthIdiot said:

I care more about the academic outcomes of those currently failing in the system. There are far too many kids who leave school almost illiterate and innumerate.

otolith said:

I would like to see every child enabled to maximise his potential.

HundredthIdiot said:

As would I, but those at the top of the academic tree at secondary level are going to succeed in life regardless, since our society (quite reasonably) rewards those people well and their future is therefore not something that loses me any sleep.

I think the attitude that the bright kids will be fine is very common within the state sector and is one of the reasons that it fails those kids - and a good reason to remove them from that environment and into one where a culture of excellence is possible and they will be helped to achieve everything they can.

[markh1973]

RichB said:

markh1973 said:

...our school had a worse drug problem than the secondary modern or comps nearby - mainly due to the kids at grammar school coming, in the main, from more middle class richer backgrounds...

Not sure I follow you logic here but if you are saying middle class families produce more drug users I would disagree. Certainly drug use by school children seems more prevalent in deprived areas which would suggest that it is not a middle class phenomena.

Put it this way the drug dealers were on the buses to the grammar school because the kids had the money to pay for it. It isn't logic it's what happened. Not saying middle class families produce more drug users simply that my school had a bigger drug problem than the other schools - doesn't make any comment on what happens after the kids left school.

[HundredthIdiot]

RichB said:

markh1973 said:

...our school had a worse drug problem than the secondary modern or comps nearby - mainly due to the kids at grammar school coming, in the main, from more middle class richer backgrounds...

Not sure I follow you logic here but if you are saying middle class families produce more drug users I would disagree. Certainly drug use by school children seems more prevalent in deprived areas which would suggest that it is not a middle class phenomena.

I can only speak from personal experience, but when I was in state secondary school (1980s) we had a couple of minor drug seizures, but several of the towns prestiguous private schools (one of which was Brighton College, the other may have been Roedean) were absolutely awash with cocaine. The "posh kids" just had more money to buy the stuff with.

Is it different now?

[HundredthIdiot]

otolith said:

Why then, if the comprehensive system works, is the gulf in academic performance to the private schools so great? Is it all down to genetics and upbringing? If so, and those kids are doomed always to underperform, what is the justification for easing their entry into higher education? That can't be right.

As I understand it, the largest single factor in determining educational outcome is home environment and parental attitude.

I am extremely skeptical of the role of genetics in educational outcome. Aside from anything else, as long as ugly clever people continue to marry attractive stupid people the breeding programme is doomed to fail.

(edited for typo)

Edited by HundredthIdiot on Thursday 19th August 15:41

[Deva Link]

markh1973 said:

In contrast my wife went to a comp that, for historical reasons, acted like a fee paying school and they had a much greater number of people going to Oxford/Cambridge than my school despite the comp being in amuch more working class area.

That's not your average comp though! I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of comps don't send any kids at all to Oxbridge.

[fadeaway]

HundredthIdiot said:

otolith said:

Why then, if the comprehensive system works, is the gulf in academic performance to the private schools so great? Is it all down to genetics and upbringing? If so, and those kids are doomed always to underperform, what is the justification for easing their entry into higher education? That can't be right.

As I understand it, the largest single factor in determining educational outcome is home environment and parental attitude.

I am extremely skeptical of the role of genetics in educational outcome. Aside from anything else, as long as ugly clever people continue to marry attractive stupid people the breeding programme is doomed to fail.

(edited for typo)

Edited by HundredthIdiot on Thursday 19th August 15:41

Absolutely right. One of the biggest factors is the attitude of parents. Where they take an interest in there childrens schooling, encourage them to do well and, importantly, back-up the school then kids do well.

[Ten Ninety]

otolith said:

It also seems to me that a school where bright children are the majority rather than the minority will be better able to accommodate their particular needs.

Their academic needs, perhaps, although that's certainly not a given. But their social needs? That's far less certain. Because if you're talking grammar schools then you're not talking about bright children being 'the majority' - they are the exclusive population. That's the whole point of the 11-plus.

And if we're talking about social mobility then one of the biggest barriers in this country is that a significant chunk of our population went to a school that told them (perhaps not explicitly but still unequivocally) that they were better than the great unwashed. Either through being brighter (state grammar) or richer (private sector). I'm not sure it matters which - the basic message is the same. And whilst some enlightened souls are able to cast that idea off as they reach adulthood, many remain simply incapable of relating to anyone outside their own rarefied world.

Still, perhaps their prejudice is no worse than all those bright kids who go to comprehensive schools and end up as inverted snobs. I guess we all like to 'stick with our own' don't we? Perhaps it's human nature itself which militates against social mobility.

speedyman said:

I truly believe that state education will never be as good as the private sector until class sizes are reduced to the same levels.

Actually, class sizes are a bit of a red herring. Probably because a poor teacher will struggle to educate a class of 5 children well whilst a good teacher can deliver a quality experience for 25 kids without difficulty.

Get above 25 and it does start to get more difficult pretty quickly. But even in a crappy state comprehensive you won't find many classes above that sort of number.

[otolith]

Ten Ninety said:

otolith said:

It also seems to me that a school where bright children are the majority rather than the minority will be better able to accommodate their particular needs.

Their academic needs, perhaps, although that's certainly not a given. But their social needs? That's far less certain. Because if you're talking grammar schools then you're not talking about bright children being 'the majority' - they are the exclusive population. That's the whole point of the 11-plus.

What social downside are you getting at (for the kids in the grammar school)?

[Ten Ninety]

otolith said:

What social downside are you getting at (for the kids in the grammar school)?

I guess missing out on the range of social interactions they would get in a comprehensive i.e. the opportunity to understand, relate to and interact effectively with people who are less able than they are, and thus the opportunity to compare first hand their own circumstances with others less fortunate.

If they don't get that opportunity I'm not sure they will ever really appreciate what an amazing gift their intellect is.

[Deva Link]

Ten Ninety said:

I guess missing out on the range of social interactions they would get in a comprehensive i.e. the opportunity to understand, relate to and interact effectively with people who are less able than they are,

They can catch up later on PistonHeads!

[Ten Ninety]

Deva Link said:

They can catch up later on PistonHeads!

Fair point, well made.

[Dr Jekyll]

Ten Ninety said:

I guess missing out on the range of social interactions they would get in a comprehensive i.e. the opportunity to understand, relate to and interact effectively with people who are less able than they are, and thus the opportunity to compare first hand their own circumstances with others less fortunate.

Reminds me of the Harry Enfield line.

"It is important to think of the poor at christmas,they may burgle your house and steal your things."

[speedyman]

Ten Ninety said:

otolith said:

It also seems to me that a school where bright children are the majority rather than the minority will be better able to accommodate their particular needs.

Their academic needs, perhaps, although that's certainly not a given. But their social needs? That's far less certain. Because if you're talking grammar schools then you're not talking about bright children being 'the majority' - they are the exclusive population. That's the whole point of the 11-plus.

And if we're talking about social mobility then one of the biggest barriers in this country is that a significant chunk of our population went to a school that told them (perhaps not explicitly but still unequivocally) that they were better than the great unwashed. Either through being brighter (state grammar) or richer (private sector). I'm not sure it matters which - the basic message is the same. And whilst some enlightened souls are able to cast that idea off as they reach adulthood, many remain simply incapable of relating to anyone outside their own rarefied world.

Still, perhaps their prejudice is no worse than all those bright kids who go to comprehensive schools and end up as inverted snobs. I guess we all like to 'stick with our own' don't we? Perhaps it's human nature itself which militates against social mobility.

speedyman said:

I truly believe that state education will never be as good as the private sector until class sizes are reduced to the same levels.

Actually, class sizes are a bit of a red herring. Probably because a poor teacher will struggle to educate a class of 5 children well whilst a good teacher can deliver a quality experience for 25 kids without difficulty.

Get above 25 and it does start to get more difficult pretty quickly. But even in a crappy state comprehensive you won't find many classes above that sort of number.

So why would private schools waste money having lower class sizes if they didn't need to, they know a lower class size makes for better teaching and results. I rest my case..

[HundredthIdiot]

speedyman said:

So why would private schools waste money having lower class sizes if they didn't need to, they know a lower class size makes for better teaching and results. I rest my case..

They may or may not "know" that. The customers believe that and are prepared to pay for it, and it helps them differentiate from state schools, so it's good business.

[thinfourth2]

If you want social mobility then introduce a law that all private schools must take on one child per class for free and they fund this from their own budget.

How they choose this child is up to them.

Yes it will make private education more expensive but it should give a chance to some kids to get out of the sewer.


Also in state schools they should reduce the leaving age to about 12 as the scum doesn't want to be there, the scums parents don't want them there, the teachers don't want scum there, pupils who want to learn don't want the scum there so let them bugger off and work down a mine or learn a useful skill.

[AJS-]

thinfourth2 said:

Also in state schools they should reduce the leaving age to about 12 as the scum doesn't want to be there, the scums parents don't want them there, the teachers don't want scum there, pupils who want to learn don't want the scum there so let them bugger off and work down a mine or learn a useful skill.

Yes but all sorts of do gooding people who have nothing to do with it do want them there to maintain the illusion that we live in a civilised country where children go to school until they're adults.

[RichB]

thinfourth2 said:

...let them bugger off and work down a mine or learn a useful skill.

Ah but there is the nub of the problem (well one of) we no longer have any industry in the UK so there aren't really any factories/mines/docks/foundries/shipyards/mills etc. for them to work in and the country only needs so many plumbers and electricians. Without getting into the economics and politics of why - it's a fact that generally since the war the opportunities for manual workers have decreased generation by generation... hence the layabouts and loafers.