Cutting maintenance

[MdB]

**Perhaps I'm still smarting from being forced to take O-level french instead of my favoured geography, though that was in the days before league tables. I will, of course, never know my full geographic potential, though I have a sneaking suspicion it would have been rather better than my almost complete french failure.

For me is was forced French instead of Art...

 

[Penners]

I will, of course, never know my full geographic potential

I reckon you have exceeded your geographic potential by moving to East Anglia. An insuperable achievement!

 

[Jill]

Sending him to a highly academic school (assuming we could get him in), where he might bump along the bottom, may very well be a poor choice.

Very wise words, Nigel.

As a result of passing the 11+ I went to a highly selective academic school and came out convinced that I was one of the 'less able' pupils because I was invariably in the bottom half of the class. Your son is a lucky chap, having such a perceptive dad.

I'll agree with that. I went to a comprehensive and because both of sisters were in the top class that is where I was put. I was bottom of the class for much of the time and it did very little for my confidence, never daring to put my hand up in case i was laughed at by the brighter kids nor asking for help from the teachers. My sister who lives in Belgium, where I believe they do have different types of schools, has just had to make a similar decision with her youngest who is not as academic as the other two. After hearing of my experience at school she decided to place him where he is most suited, he is happier than he has ever been and is doing well. The eldest who is very academic and gifted in many ways is now worried because he is no longer the top of the class, he is also only one of two in his class who participate in any sport or other activities which are not academic and this is also a concern to him.

My brother-in-law who is a Doctor of Chemistry being involved in scientific research for a number of years wishes that he had followed his heart and done carpentry instead. I believe that you should do what makes you happy and what you are good at. Its just a shame that we often do not have a choice in the matter.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Westminster School, alma mater of Tony Benn, Ruth Kelly and Nick Clegg

Not sure if that's much of a recommendation...

In an ideal world there would be a spectrum of different kinds of schools, all excellent in their own way, with parents having the right to choose which one would suit their child the best. This would be hard to achieve of course, and possibly even resisted by those who believe that one of the main purposes of education is social engineering.

A spectrum of schools is an excellent idea. There is already a wide range of secondary schools but the evidence strongly suggests that far from resisting, this variety is actively supported by those who believe that one of the main purposes of education is social engineering. Research into grammar schools revealed that of 22,500 entrants, only 500 came from 'poor' backgrounds. The same analysis revealed that in 90% of these schools, pupils who had been privately educated were admitted with an average KS2 SAT score below that of their state educated peers. Both figures point to the fact that social engineering works to keep poorer pupils out of grammars. (many parents have their children coached for a year to pass the 11+ , at between £30 and £50 an hour)

My son is in year six, and we have been excluded from applying to our first choice of school. It has great exam results, small class sizes, offers a wide range of subjects and has an excellent extra-curricular programme. He is bright enough to get in, but the £8,501 a term fees mean that he has been socially engineered out of the running. I would love the right to choose the one best suited to my child.

 

[LadyArowana]

My son is in year six, and we have been excluded from applying to our first choice of school. It has great exam results, small class sizes, offers a wide range of subjects and has an excellent extra-curricular programme. He is bright enough to get in, but the £8,501 a term fees mean that he has been socially engineered out of the running. I would love the right to choose the one best suited to my child.

Don't worry about it, if he's bright enough he will obviously learn that money is useful, work extremely hard to make lots of it and do very well for himself. Granted he may have to endure the wrath of those people who choose to pursue less lucrative but maybe more personally satisfying careers but you can't have everything. Unless of course you can kick a football rather well, which bestows untold riches and adoration in exchange for doing what lots of people do for fun.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I agree very much with Lady A's post - I think people find their own level regardless of, or even despite of their education. And what goes on at home is much more important than which school. I had a pampered childhood and adolescence, was sent to a nice private school ( having failed the 11+) where I got strings of As, always had the lead in the school play, which was produced in the town's theatre, and then went on to Oxford - where I got a first in the first year but slipped slightly in Finals what with so much stripping off for the national press - but what can I do, career wise? Nothing, because I still expect my days to be chiefly ornamental and intellectually stimulating. I was never asked to help practically at all when I was growing up, I don't think I knew how to make a cup of tea until I was 18 - I think that has a lot to do with it.

Chris had a very opposite upbringing, and went to a rough comp, but is as ambitiously driven, in his own way, as anyone you could meet, I can't imagine him ever being unemployed and he has zero tolerance of people who are. His father is just the same. It's just as well he's happy to look after me.

All of which is meant to say that schooling is just one factor, and perhaps less important than people might think.

 

[Nigel Watts]

I think we had a debate quite recently on private education.

The question of entry to grammar schools is an interesting one. My understanding is that these schools are obliged to apply a wholly mechanical process to their selection of candidates. If there are n places available, they have to be given to the top n scorers in the exam with no primary school headmaster's report, no interview, no discretion, no allowance for social background. (This contrasts with Oxford and Cambridge entry processes which the last government leaned on strongly to take such other factors into account).

The remaining grammar schools, being concentrated in Tory-held counties which fought a rearguard action against Shirley Williams's attempts to abolish them in the 1970s, are mostly in well-heeled areas where parents often can choose to use the private system. My mother, for example, who lives in a prosperous suburb of an Essex town with two of the country's best grammars, is constantly expressing disapproval of her millionaire neighbours for lavishing vast sums on extending their houses, building swimming pools taking exotic holidays and buying expensive cars while educating their children at the taxpayers' expense at these schools.

Where grammar schools are most needed, and could again act as an engine of social mobility, is not in the home counties, but in inner cities and the less prosperous parts of the midlands and the north. Not one in every town perhaps, but a few in every county to provide an academic environment for a modest number of the most able without stripping all the bright kids from the comprehensives.

 

[Nigel Watts]

I ... expect my days to be chiefly ornamental and intellectually stimulating.

This is my aspiration too but I am still rather a long way from being regarded by the wife as an ornament.

I don't think I knew how to make a cup of tea until I was 18

This would not have been possible at a posh school in my day. Making tea was one of the key duties of one's fag.

 

[Flyfisher]

And what goes on at home is much more important than which school.

I very much agree with that. Children are already hugely influenced by the time they even start school and the home influences continue throughout their schooling. I've always thought that all children have equal potential as they are born but, from that second on, their experiences begin to mould their characters and, indeed, what we call intelligence. Coincidentally, here's an interesting article from today's BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12140064.

The one thing that does bother me about these sorts of debates, though, is the notion that children are somehow 'privileged' if they're parents are 'successful' enough to be able to privately educate them and that this somehow gives them an 'unfair' advantage in life and that this is a 'bad' thing. I've quoted those words because they can be interpreted in different ways.

In one sense, yes, some children do have a more 'privileged' upbringing, but what is actually wrong with that? Isn't 'success' what everyone strives for (yes, I realise that there are many possible definitions, but let's keep it general)? Isn't that what we teach in all our schools, private or public? Work hard, do well, get good exam results so you'll be able to get a good job, so you'll be able to earn more money, so you'll have more choices in life?

Yet, when the 'successful' products of this 'work hard, be successful' culture have their own children and are able to give them a head-start in their own lives, large sections of society suddenly deem it to be rather unfair that success should breed success. Isn't that actually the whole point?

 

[skier-hughes]

Then there is the ofsted reports!
Our local primary was failing badly, was under report.
Major changes were made to the whole school, in 12 months it was up to satisfactory.
Propsective parents may look at that and say, oh, only satisfacory, whereas the other two local schools are both currently good.
If we were to be re-inspected I'm sure we'd be at least good, but we have to live with the past.

 

[Penners]

Then there is the ofsted reports!
Our local primary was failing badly

Was that because they were caught teaching the use of a singular part of the verb with a plural noun? :wink:

 

[skier-hughes]

I've no idea, my education is very poor, my English construction is crap, my comprehension is dire, can you perhaps explain that last post in Swahili, I might just understand what you've tried to learn me.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Swahili, as a highly inflected language, would be a good choice. I learned more about English grammar in my Latin classes than I ever did in English ones. Latin is also very inflected of course and therefore suitable for this purpose.

 

[Lime]

I learned more about English grammar in my Latin classes than I ever did in English ones. Latin is also very inflected of course and therefore suitable for this purpose.

Same here.
In particular I learnt the names of language i.e. nominative, vocative, accusative etc.
Comes in handy when I teach french students.

 

[DaveBrigg]

I agree very much with Lady A's post - I think people find their own level regardless of, or even despite of their education.

An interesting idea to consider. If true however, it raises the question of why so many parents pay thousands of pounds to ensure that their children attend a particular type of school. If their child will make similar progress whether they attend Eton or a comprehensive in Slough what else do they get that is worth £10 000 a term?
In reality, evidence suggests that people do not find their level regardless of education. The Sutton Trust researched the issue and discovered:
Population attending fee paying schools - 7%
These pupils seem to be over-represented in certain professions:
Judges and barristers who were privately educated - 70%
Leading journalsists who were privately educated - 54%
Partners in top law firms who were privately educated - 55%
Lords - 62%

The only areas where type of education seemed to matter less was MP's, where in 2007 68% came from the state sector and university Vice Chancellors where private education accounted for 24%

IMHO there is nothing wrong with parents wanting the best for their children. The difficulty comes in accepting that some children should be put at a disadvantage because of their parents, who are unwilling or in most cases unable to give the level of support needed to ensure a level playing field. I still like Nigel's idea of a range of schools suited to different abilities and aptitudes, but this could only work if there was a fair way of assessing pupils to decide where they were best suited. Imagine the outrage however when it was decided that millionnaire Lord A's son should attend a technical college to pursue his skill in engineering while the gifted daughters of a couple of unemployed alcoholics were funded by the state to attend Charterhouse.

 

[Nigel Watts]

There is evidence that there is a significant inherited element in intelligence. It is not surprising therefore that many children of successful intelligent people should also be successful and intelligent. Of course other factors play a significant part too but it would be most odd if there were no correlation between having a parent who was able to afford private schooling and success in later life.

Many of the elite public schools have now become very meritocratic but there are plenty of other good schools for the less than fiendishly bright. A dimish son of a rich Lord is far more likely these days to attend a school like Stowe (apologies to Penners), Radley or Marlborough than Eton these days. Being responsive to the market, the private sector can and does provide excellent schooling for all ability ranges, but not necessarily in the same school. However by offering scholarships and bursaries even schools which are pretty run of the mill academically can attract a small core of bright pupils. Felsted, my old school, was like this.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Dave, I really do take your point and if I were lucky enough to have children - which seems unlikely - I'd want them to go to private school, which could only be afforded by us if I were to get some kind of career - which seems fair enough.

However, my main motivation for wanting them to go there would not be in hopes that they'd end as a judge or a surgeon but that they'd have opportunities for things like choral societies, dance, drama, fencing, or wherever their interests lay.

By careful parenting, and living in a fairly happening part of the UK - those enriching extra curricular activities could be organised outside of a private school system, and might even be better as a result.

You used some extremes to justify your argument, but there are plenty of mediocre private schools and plenty of alright comps. It really is about the individual child ultimately - as well as the school.

I don't say it's unimportant - but I think there's too much angst over it all.

And as Nigel and FF have suggested, there is nothing immoral about work hard = get "more"

As it happens my father is a simple working class man who left school at 14 and went into the RAF - that's how my boarding school was paid for. You could argue that's unfair - or that no, it isn't, because he was prepared to be posted all over the world and die at his job.

(Fortunately the worst that ever happened to him was a minor skirmish in Penang in the 50s)

 

[skier-hughes]

By careful parenting, and living in a fairly happening part of the UK - those enriching extra curricular activities could be organised outside of a private school system, and might even be better as a result.

Why a happening part of the country? You just organise the activities yourself, so instead of a career you become a volunteer!!!
Happening parts only happen because people are making it happen.

 

[LadyArowana]

An interesting idea to consider. If true however, it raises the question of why so many parents pay thousands of pounds to ensure that their children attend a particular type of school. If their child will make similar progress whether they attend Eton or a comprehensive in Slough what else do they get that is worth £10 000 a term?

The amount of utility that people attach to goods and services and therefore what they are willing to pay for them is often difficult to justify by purely objective means. Why else would the carpark in our apartment complex have a fairly good sprinkling of supercars ( sorry Middi and Mr P, no Veyron ) when the island is only 42 by 23 Km? Even discounting the possible consequences of a bit of tunnel blasting or an expressway race it's not feasible unless you want to go out to play at 4am. People buy them so they can say they have them, so that on the rare occasion they drive them everyone knows how much they spent, not so that the journey from A to B takes them any less time or is any more comfortable than if they had a Toyota. Things that are even less use absorb a huge quantity of discretionary spending. Most people couldn't tell a synthetic diamond from a natural one even with a loupe, let alone from a distance. The difference in price is huge but it's a brave man that explains that to his future bride!

 

[Moo]

Although I agree wholeheartedly with your theory, milady, I'm not sure about applying it to private education.

And as far as careful parenting and enriching extra-curricular activities are concerned, I'm surprised that this is the first time that anyone has mentioned the unfair advantage that some children have before they've even set foot in a school. You know the sort of thing - second-hand clothes/toys/bikes, rusty old car, shabby house, no holidays abroad, no restaurant meals, home-cooked food, bed-time stories, lots of books/conversation ...