Cutting maintenance

[skier-hughes]

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 ...

That was my childhood.

My parents did everything and gave me everything that they could, but it just wasn't much.

I swapped schools due to moving, I had to go to a secondary modern school instead of a grammar school due to the inept local council, who assured my parents that the school was a comprehensive and I'd sit the new GCSE. It was, but it was only for the year below me.
For 6 months my aprents fought to move me to the school I should be at, I went and sat and passed more entrance exams, but they were "full up".
I was bullied terribly at school as I was by far the brightest person in the year, I arrived in May, sat end of year exams and came top in every subject, even though on the most part I hadn't studied the syllabus they were using.
I then went on to the grammer school to take my A level's, were I was then amongst the lower end of the ability levels.
Didn't hurt me overall, I went on to make a fortune, lose and fortune and make a fortune again

I then gave my son everything I could. He had much more than I, but I doubt he had a happier childhood, as I look back on mine and think what a great time I had.

 

[Moo]

I've been asked, by my husband, to approach the fount of all knowledge (PPUK, of course) for some information:
There is much argument in the media about the wisdom (or otherwise) of admitting to top universities students from comprehensive schools who have less brilliant exam grades than those from private schools (on the grounds that, it is argued, they would have done so much better if they'd gone to better schools).
Is there any evidence about their subsequent performance at university?

 

[Moo]

... gave me everything that they could, but it just wasn't much.

Not much in monetary terms, certainly, Graham. But gold-plated as far as the really important things are concerned, surely (born out by the way in which you endured - and survived - your secondary education!).

 

[Flyfisher]

My parents did everything and gave me everything that they could, b̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶m̶u̶c̶h̶

Fixed.

I agree with Moo - it sounds to me like you had great parents!

 

[middi]

Apart from love and care there is no better substitute as to what else parents can give their children ( or grandchildren for that matter), the best possible education they can afford. My grandaughter is costing a fortune.

I totally agree that private education is a waste of time for some rich idiots.

I also know that uneducated cretins that think they can look down and s**t all over their well educated counterparts have not realised that if their educated couterparts look up all they will see is loads of A*$E holes :wink:

Middi

( fortunate enough just to go to any school)

 

[Jill]

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 ...

That was my childhood.

Mine too.(Apart from living in a decent semi) Although being the youngest of three girls my clothes and toys were often third hand. The dolls pram we had was painted a different colour for each of us - we didn't know this until many years later when looking back at photos of christmas mornings. I certainly have never looked at myself of having a deprived childhood (apart from being given a black doll when I wanted Teeny Tiny Tears but I was only about 5 years old at the time!) We were well cared and provided for, and most importantly loved and happy. I remember a few years back telling my parents that one particular christmas sticks in my mind as I got lots of little presents that I spread out on the floor. In particular a Timex Watch and a pack of 5 Enid Blyton Books. Apparently that was the year that my Dads had been on strike and they couldn't afford to give us alot, but I was happy with what I had been given and have happy memories to go with it.

Considering all of the above and the fact that I only attended a Comprehensive, and then an inner city college to gain a HNC through work I don't think I have done badly at all. I suppose it depends what is important to you in life.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Being Comprehensively (and comprehensively) educated and raised by loving, married and employed parents, one of whom was not academic (daughter of a farm labourer) and one of whom was the first generation to go to university (and became a Crown Prosecutor), I can firmly attest to a number of things:

a) environment is fundamentally important to life chances - a warm, loving, supportive and stretching family life was more important to me than anything and this is what primarily nurtured my academic success, not the school I went to; albeit it was "good enough" to work with the material it was presented with. It was the former secondary modern in the town, so not over-endowed with an illustrious past!I went on to a separate 6th form college and University.

b) having said that, ironically, the eleven-plus and selective grammar education was fundamentally important as a leg-up to my aspirational grand-parents and father. It provided an equality of opportunity (not outcome) that enabled my father to move from working class to professional class once he had met the academic standard, and for his children to be firmly middle-class with the opportunities and advantages that entails.

What deeply distresses me as a parent myself now is:

a) to see the life-chances written in the environment of infants I see at school each day; we have fab teachers in a fialry normal Welsh primary school, but they struggle to overcome the lack of care and aspiration some of their charges receive at home. The spirit and opportunity is literally drained out of some of these kids before they come through the gate; they have come to accept that all the social engineering in the world is not going to overcome this.

b) the lowest-common-denominator approach of so many (primarily on the Left, but this isn't a political point) to choice and variety in the provision of education. I want to see equality of opportunity as an input and don't give two hoots if the outcome/output is not equal. A pluraility of providers who can tailor learning to kids' circumstances, aptitudes and potential is vital.

I was rather depressed at the earlier comments on this thread on the Governments' school reforms and revised assessments for league tables. They seemed to me to be based in a desire to play the system and look good, rather than an appreciation that the government is trying to provide guidance to parents on a range of skills/subject matter that are important. It strikes me as a step forward to say that kids should leave with good GCSES that include English, Maths, Science, a modern language and history/geography, and to provide parents with lots more info on how schools spend our money - rather than than the old scheme of 5 GCSES including English & Maths but the rest could be made up by a variety of dumbed down courses to make up the numbers. (OK I generalise).

No one in the public sector should be afraid of greater information being provided on what they do and how well they do it - and the more of it that is outcome rather than output based the better.

 

[Moo]

they struggle to overcome the lack of care and aspiration some of their charges receive at home. The spirit and opportunity is literally drained out of some of these kids before they come through the gate;

That's where the old 11+ system was able, sometimes, to be of assistance. I know of at least one person who ended up in the local grammar school in spite of her parents. Her teachers almost steamrollered her (unskilled) father into allowing her to take up the place she'd been awarded and she never looked back. She (and her husband, of course) gave their son a typical middle-class upbringing, he is now earning telephone numbers doing something very clever and is, in his turn, providing his two delightful children with everything they need*.



*note that I said 'need' - not 'want'.

 

[Pford75]

Echo Moo's sentiment

My father had 1 CSE and my mother 2 O levels.....I was lucky to get a Grammar school place. I am confident that this school filled me with the self belief and confidence that has stood me in good stead and taught me that educational achievement should be a source of pride, not something to be mocked.

The destruction of the grammar school system and 11+ was one of the most damaging impacts on social mobility.

 

[DaveBrigg]

To respond to several points:

Many of the elite public schools have now become very meritocratic

I can't see this myself. Merit may be a consideration, but only after a student has passed the first hurdle of having a parent who can pay the fees. It was interesting to see that there is a class system even amongst the public schools though.

I was bullied terribly at school...
I look back on mine (childhood) and think what a great time I had.

I've been asked, by my husband, to approach the fount of all knowledge (PPUK, of course) for some information:
There is much argument in the media about the wisdom (or otherwise) of admitting to top universities students from comprehensive schools who have less brilliant exam grades than those from private schools (on the grounds that, it is argued, they would have done so much better if they'd gone to better schools).
Is there any evidence about their subsequent performance at university?

Yes. I’d heard that state school pupils fared better, but it was not easy to track down the evidence. The research is pay-to-view, but I found a summary:
“This article examines the cause of school type effects upon gaining a first class degree at Oxford University, whereby for a given level of secondary school performance, private school students perform less well at degree level. We compare the predictive power of an aptitude test and secondary school grades (GCSEs) for final examination performance, using data from the Oxford Admissions Study. Both metrics are predictive of final degree performance but the school effects are only statistically robust for arts students. Private school students perform less well in final examinations relative to their GCSE results when compared with state school students, but they do not under perform relative to their aptitude test scores or in gross terms. It is therefore argued that teaching effects, associated with private school students, distort secondary school grades as an indicator of academic potential in higher education when compared to state school students.”
The explanation as I have heard it is that with very small class sizes and the extra time available at a boarding school, it is possible to coach pupils to obtain GCSE grades beyond their abilities. Once they get to Oxbridge however, there is more of a level playing field and academic ability becomes the main factor. State schools also coach pupils of course, but the pressure comes from league tables rather than parents wanting a return on their cash, so the target in most comprehensives is to raise D grades to C. Fewer than 1% of recent Oxbridge graduates came from families entitled to free school meals.

What deeply distresses me as a parent myself now is:

a) to see the life-chances written in the environment of infants I see at school each day… they struggle to overcome the lack of care and aspiration some of their charges receive at home.

Agreed. It is this, rather than the lack of material goods, which puts these children at such a disadvantage. However, like it or not, national statistics show that the one factor linked most strongly to underperformance at school is poverty. The same is true of course for life expectancy. The exact nature of the link is harder to define.

I want to see equality of opportunity as an input and don't give two hoots if the outcome/output is not equal. A plurality of providers who can tailor learning to kids' circumstances, aptitudes and potential is vital.

Agreed. It would be great if the pupils you mentioned at your local primary had an equal opportunity to go to a private boarding school; it sounds from their circumstances that they would really benefit. Equality of opportunity becomes harder to achieve when one type of school receives an 80% cut in its capital budget and another one doesn't.

I was rather depressed at the earlier comments on this thread on the Governments' school reforms and revised assessments for league tables. They seemed to me to be based in a desire to play the system and look good, rather than an appreciation that the government is trying to provide guidance to parents on a range of skills/subject matter that are important.

League tables have become an example of the tail wagging the dog. Not because of competition with ‘rival’ schools, but because they are used by Ofsted. 5A*-C used to be the over-riding guide, so schools were in a situation where the performance of every child could improve, but the only ones who mattered statistically were those who went from a D to a C. With limited resources, a school that tried to give a little extra to all pupils could find itself in special measures because the 5 A*-C was lower than other comparable schools. Nothing in the new plans will change this.
The problems with Gove’s latest idea are:
1) He seems to have a fairly arbitrary idea of what is ‘important’. English and Maths have always been there, but has there been an outcry from employers about the appalling lack of knowledge of the corn laws? Why isn’t Business Studies included, or English Literature? Presumably qualifications in subjects such as Electronics, Sports Science or Engineering are not worth measuring. A quick search on this forum would find lots of support for more vocational subjects in schools; the new tables introduce a step in the opposite direction.
2) To avoid the stigma of ‘failing’, schools will now force as many pupils as possible to follow this narrow curriculum. How can it be argued that schools should ‘tailor learning to kids' circumstances, aptitudes and potential’ and then support a system which will push them into options that they might not enjoy, need or be any good at. In an ideal world everyone should study a language, but in reality we have a small number each year for whom this is torture; they have little aptitude and their circumstances suggest that they will never use what they have learned. They will find themselves forced to take this subject for another two years, at the expense of an option such as Child Development which they are good at, enjoy and may lead to a job.
3) As mentioned before, schools are now being judged on a ‘one size fits all’ criteria which didn’t exist when standards were being set. We have a ridiculous situation locally where some schools performed well with 5 A*-C but now find themselves on 0%, alongside the Special Unit for pupils with severe learning difficulties. It’s the government’s prerogative to introduce different measures, but at least give schools a chance to meet these new targets before judging. Would there ever be a case in industry of a factory being asked to produce one type of product, and then being judged a failure because it hadn’t produced something else instead?

 

[Moo]

Thanks so much for that information, Dave. I've printed it off ready for my husband to digest with his breakfast.

I think there could well be a link between two other bits of your post:

the one factor linked most strongly to underperformance at school is poverty.

and

Child Development which they are good at, enjoy and may lead to a job.

Surely poverty doesn't prevent parents from talking (and listening) to their children, or borrowing books from the library, or taking them for walks in the park, or just playing with them?

and - I always thought that the purpose of Child Development courses was to develop parenting skills.

 

[middi]

This should highlight the uphill struggle the education system is faced with.
I was gazing through an estate agent shop window, in Epping, trying to read the details of a nice 15th/16thC house for sale when I overheard a conversation from two men in their middle 30's standing in the porchway of the adjoining pub having a smoke.

It went something like this:-
" my (effing) son has been expelled from school"
-----
" what for"
------
" chucked a book at his ( effing ) teacher , didn't he "
-------
" what got over him, dave)
-----
" wasn't his fault, I told that ( effing) cow of a teacher, when she called me up before, that he is not a vey good learner, she must have pushed him too far"
------
" If I were you dave, when you go up there( the school??) tell that ( effing ) teacher that if she had got off her a^*e and taught him how to read this wouldn't have happened"

I thought " GOD HELP US"

Middi

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Middi - I often marvel at the fact you have to pass a test to drive a car, but we let any feckless shyster vote and breed! :roll:

I'm only just joking - I think!

 

[Nigel Watts]

It's certainly possible that some independent schools

coach pupils to obtain GCSE grades beyond their abilities

but many simply regard GCSEs as a rather tiresome necessity that shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of giving the kids a proper education. This is certainly the attitude at Westminster School which has adopted the harder IGCSEs, in part I think to avoid getting bogged down in fatuous coursework. An equally plausible explanation of the differential performance of students at university based on GCSE results is that many state schools don't allow their pupils to reach their full potential.

Too much emphasis is placed on capital expenditure as a reason for good or poor school results. Some of the buildings at the private schools I attended with quite slum-like but that didnt stop us from being taught well.

 

[Flyfisher]

Surely poverty doesn't prevent parents from talking (and listening) to their children, or borrowing books from the library, or taking them for walks in the park, or just playing with them?

I agree. There seemed to be a reasonable consensus in previous posts that parental support is the dominant factor in a child's upbringing. I don't believe money is necessary for this. Could it be that a poor household is not actually a causal factor regarding parental ability or commitment? After all, there are plenty of examples of successful people coming from humble backgrounds as there are of feckless youths coming from very rich backgrounds. I suppose it would be terribly non-PC to suggest that many poorer households are the result of adult fecklessness and that it's the parents, rather than poverty per se, that pass it on.

I don't doubt for one second that poverty creates a tough environment for bringing up a family but everyone has choices - the choice to blame it all on "them", tell their kids that the system is rigged and "the likes of us" will never be able to make anything of themselves so what's the point in trying, or the choice to see that the sky is the limit, that hard work can bring rewards and that anything is possible. Of course there are no guarantees of success - that's life - though it's quite possible to guarantee failure. "Try and you might, don't and you won't" as my grandmother used to say.

On a similar theme, Middi's little anecdote is precisely the sort of thing that drove my sister-in-law to abandon teaching in Peckham, south London, and move to Spain to teach in a private (English) school. She could, and was prepared to, cope with unruly children but not unruly (and often threatening) parents. I don't believe money would solve such issues.

 

[Flyfisher]

The problems with Gove’s latest idea are:
1) He seems to have a fairly arbitrary idea of what is ‘important’. English and Maths have always been there, but has there been an outcry from employers about the appalling lack of knowledge of the corn laws? Why isn’t Business Studies included, or English Literature? Presumably qualifications in subjects such as Electronics, Sports Science or Engineering are not worth measuring. A quick search on this forum would find lots of support for more vocational subjects in schools; the new tables introduce a step in the opposite direction.

My personal experience may have given me a warped view on such things, but I'm not at all convinced that what is taught in schools is anywhere near as important as teaching about the process of education; how to find things out, how to solve problems (of all kinds), how to question and analyse things, how to form sensible conclusions; in short, teach children how to apply their inherent intelligence to all the challenges they'll face in life. Specific subjects can be used as a measure of how successful this process is, but I'm not convinced that the subjects themselves are of necessarily inherent value (apart, probably, from maths and English).

I say this because I don't believe much of the knowledge I learned during my school years has been of any great value as such (and only one of those years at a private school, for financial reasons). I studied the usual range of subjects at O-level, then sciences at A-level, then a degree in biology and then . . . . a career in digital electronics and computing - something for which I received almost no formal education or training because such a career didn't really exist when I was at school. But the educational process was priceless. In short, my parents gave me ambition and my education gave me the means to an end, though not the end itself.

Of course, parental ambition is one thing but the reality can still disappoint. In my case, failing to grow the extra half-inch that would have got me to 6 feet tall and not becoming a medical doctor - such are the crosses I have to bear. :wink:

 

[Penners]

This should highlight the uphill struggle the education system is faced with.

Middi - I have a true story with a vaguely similar theme which highlights the standard of parenting that is producing the kind of child mentioned in your anecdote.

I was in a well-known supermarket, near the fruit counter. A child of about 5 or 6 was running around and being a general nuisance. Finally, as he sped past his mother, she smacked him around the head (without a word).

The boy yelled, "Oi Mum, that f***ing hurt!"

The mother turned around an cuffed him again, yelling "don't you f***ing swear at me!"

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[middi]

Penners, your experience ( and my own) in witnessing first hand the very sad ( and concerning) aspect of that kind of behaviour is depressing to say the least. I feel for those teachers in primary and secondary education that need to bring out the best from these kids.

University??. A lot of these kids are much more likely to end in borstal.

Maybe as nano technology becomes more advanced and readily available the medical profession will be able to " zap" the culprit gene and come to the rescue

In the mean time we may have to castrate the males that are carriers :wink:

Middi

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Middi - I often marvel at the fact you have to pass a test to drive a car, but we let any feckless shyster vote and breed! :roll:

In the mean time we may have to castrate the males that are carriers :wink:

By Jove, I think you may be in to something my Italian friend!

 

[middi]

Middi - I often marvel at the fact you have to pass a test to drive a car, but we let any feckless shyster vote and breed! :roll:

In the mean time we may have to castrate the males that are carriers :wink:

By Jove, I think you may be in to something my Italian friend!

..." by Jove " my foot !!!!!. "by Middi", surely . ( I may patent the idea :wink: )

Middi