Mobility.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree with everything you've just written.

And I'm not even a parent. Cheers!

Indeed...

Rick Chasey wrote:

I've always been in favour of sending your kind to the local school. Period. No choice.

Indeed...

(You (both) may think differently when you're parents.

In case you missed it first time around

So you're saying you won't think differently when or if you become a parent? How can you be sure of this?

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

In case you missed it first time around

So you're saying you won't think differently when or if you become a parent? How can you be sure of this?

I just thought in the context it was funny enough to post twice :P.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Well, you'd better start saving - the best part of £13K p.a. for Alleyns.

Don't bother. Alleyns is very hard to get into.

Not because it is academically fantastic (although it is good), but for other reasons.

The intake at 11 is about 120. Of that number, roughly half the places are taken by the Alleyns prep school candidates and siblings. That leaves 60 places - 30 boys and 30 girls. When 66 major applied, there were over 600 applicants. Odds worse than 1 in 10, which means the school has the luxury of being able to choose between someone in the top 10% who qualifies for a non-academic scholarship as well, and someone who "merely" makes it into the top 10%.

It's also riding the wave of popularity that mixed schools are enjoying at the moment in London, which doesn't help.

Interesting you say that: on the Ofsted report of that decidedly average Wimbledon Prep School I posted a while back, the one thing they did seem to be doing well is getting their pupils into the local private school.

EKE_38BPM

rjsterry wrote:

...on the Ofsted report of that decidedly average Wimbledon Prep School I posted a while back, the one thing they did seem to be doing well is getting their pupils into the local private school.

I have very little of how the private school system work, but it would seem to me that, other than wanting the fees that they bring, the private schools wouldn't really want the 'average' output of a prep school.

I thought that they would want the best pupils (whose parents can pay) from any source so that they can stay at the top of the pile. If the intake isn't so good then the output probably won't be as good as it could be, the results go down, they don't look so good to the parents of potential pupils, so they have to reduce their fees to keep the classes full, so they make less money. No business wants to make less money, unless they are set up as a not for profit.

rjsterry

Something to get our right-leaning friends rolling their eyes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/23/social-mobility-nick-clegg

But she makes quiet a good point: trying to use the education system to 'solve' the problems that the widening income gap creates is unrealistic, and, I don't believe, what an education system is for.

rjsterry

EKE_38BPM wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

...on the Ofsted report of that decidedly average Wimbledon Prep School I posted a while back, the one thing they did seem to be doing well is getting their pupils into the local private school.

I have very little of how the private school system work, but it would seem to me that, other than wanting the fees that they bring, the private schools wouldn't really want the 'average' output of a prep school.

I thought that they would want the best pupils (whose parents can pay) from any source so that they can stay at the top of the pile. If the intake isn't so good then the output probably won't be as good as it could be, the results go down, they don't look so good to the parents of potential pupils, so they have to reduce their fees to keep the classes full, so they make less money. No business wants to make less money, unless they are set up as a not for profit.

Which leads to my earlier suggestion that what private schools 'sell' is as much connections and access, and status for the parents, as it is academic achievement for the child. Prep schools don't stick with those anachronistic uniforms for nothing.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

...on the Ofsted report of that decidedly average Wimbledon Prep School I posted a while back, the one thing they did seem to be doing well is getting their pupils into the local private school.

I have very little of how the private school system work, but it would seem to me that, other than wanting the fees that they bring, the private schools wouldn't really want the 'average' output of a prep school.

I thought that they would want the best pupils (whose parents can pay) from any source so that they can stay at the top of the pile. If the intake isn't so good then the output probably won't be as good as it could be, the results go down, they don't look so good to the parents of potential pupils, so they have to reduce their fees to keep the classes full, so they make less money. No business wants to make less money, unless they are set up as a not for profit.

Which leads to my earlier suggestion that what private schools 'sell' is as much connections and access, and status for the parents, as it is academic achievement for the child. Prep schools don't stick with those anachronistic uniforms for nothing.

Back when State schools weren't being slated - some so bad that they were ether renamed or shutdown - their sell was reputation as well.

Same with hospitals. The name used to be a selling point. Then the NHS got labelled as a failure and Trusts are trying to move away from the Hospital name/identity.

EKE_38BPM

rjsterry wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

...on the Ofsted report of that decidedly average Wimbledon Prep School I posted a while back, the one thing they did seem to be doing well is getting their pupils into the local private school.

I have very little of how the private school system work, but it would seem to me that, other than wanting the fees that they bring, the private schools wouldn't really want the 'average' output of a prep school.

I thought that they would want the best pupils (whose parents can pay) from any source so that they can stay at the top of the pile. If the intake isn't so good then the output probably won't be as good as it could be, the results go down, they don't look so good to the parents of potential pupils, so they have to reduce their fees to keep the classes full, so they make less money. No business wants to make less money, unless they are set up as a not for profit.

Which leads to my earlier suggestion that what private schools 'sell' is as much connections and access, and status for the parents, as it is academic achievement for the child. Prep schools don't stick with those anachronistic uniforms for nothing.

But my own experience would point to the teachers & their connections and the alumni of a state school can still lead to a good school with some outstanding departments (to paraphrase the Ofsted report). Loads of us went onto good universities and/or have been quite (financially) successful.

DonDaddyD

This state funded Grammar School - http://www.wcgs.org.uk/ - has enough reputation to see its finest get into the very best Universities.

rjsterry

EKE_38BPM wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

...on the Ofsted report of that decidedly average Wimbledon Prep School I posted a while back, the one thing they did seem to be doing well is getting their pupils into the local private school.

I have very little of how the private school system work, but it would seem to me that, other than wanting the fees that they bring, the private schools wouldn't really want the 'average' output of a prep school.

I thought that they would want the best pupils (whose parents can pay) from any source so that they can stay at the top of the pile. If the intake isn't so good then the output probably won't be as good as it could be, the results go down, they don't look so good to the parents of potential pupils, so they have to reduce their fees to keep the classes full, so they make less money. No business wants to make less money, unless they are set up as a not for profit.

Which leads to my earlier suggestion that what private schools 'sell' is as much connections and access, and status for the parents, as it is academic achievement for the child. Prep schools don't stick with those anachronistic uniforms for nothing.

But my own experience would point to the teachers & their connections and the alumni of a state school can still lead to a good school with some outstanding departments (to paraphrase the Ofsted report). Loads of us went onto good universities and/or have been quite (financially) successful.

Absolutely. The same for me. It suits private schools to promote the idea that only they have the standards and connections that your child needs to succeed, but I don't believe that's really the case.

The other thing that strikes me is that for all DDD's moaning about his experience in a south London comp, he really hasn't done too badly in life. In fact he's probably been more socially mobile than I have.

EKE_38BPM

rjsterry wrote:

...The other thing that strikes me is that for all DDD's moaning about his experience in a south London comp, he really hasn't done too badly in life. In fact he's probably been more socially mobile than I have.

Maybe any bullying he may have suffered made him more motivated to succeed.
A case of bullying acting as a force for good?

cyclingprop

I just thought: is the phrase "socially mobile" a euphemism?

DonDaddyD

RJS,

I spent the next four years at college undoing the damage my school did to my academic development. That unlikable part of my personality? Yes, that would be the social conditioning I developed at school.

My school was 3rd from bottom in the Ofsted league tables at one point when I attended. It's a Harris Tech now. Reputation was that bad they done away with it. Thing is there were good teachers who tried but didn't have the support, funding or leadership they needed to fulfil their ability as teachers. It was also blighted by the socio-economically deprived area and the values of many of the parents living in that area, who frankly didn't give a f*ck.

cyclingprop

DonDaddyD wrote:

RJS,

I spent the next four years at college undoing the damage my school did to my academic development. That unlikable part of my personality? Yes, that would be the social conditioning I developed at school.

My school was 3rd from bottom in the Ofsted league tables at one point when I attended. It's a Harris Tech now. Reputation was that bad they done away with it. Thing is there were good teachers who tried but didn't have the support, funding or leadership they needed to fulfil their ability as teachers. It was also blighted by the socio-economically deprived area and the values of many of the parents living in that area, who frankly didn't give a f*ck.

So if it was so bad, how come you didn't move?

DonDaddyD

A big regret of my Parents. My Mum particularly wishes she was more proactive but they were young (30s) and intimidated. Taking your kid out of school back then was a bold move, "what does that say about the child and the parents..." - were the fears of the time.

Wish they did though. I'd see that place burn to the ground as I sh*t-&-piss all over it.

cyclingprop

So despite earlier comments in the thread where you said (paraphrasing!) only parents really know what is best for a child, you're basically saying that they might not.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

My school was 3rd from bottom in the Ofsted league tables at one point when I attended.

If you're basing your opinion of state schools on your experience of attending the third worst in the country, its no surprise you hold the opinions you do.

DonDaddyD

cyclingprop wrote:

So despite only parents really knowing what is best for a child, you're basically saying that they might not.

I don't think I ever said that parents always know what is best for a child. What I have said is that when a person has a child they may think differently about some things.

If you're basing your opinion of state schools on your experience of attending the third worst in the country, its no surprise you hold the opinions you.

If you go to school and college in/near Croydon you understand that it is a hub and the relative and geographic closeness to a large number of competing schools gives you a perspective of many schools all at the same time.

But in short, no, I'm not basingmy opinion of state schools now on my experience 19 - 15 yrs ago. Things have moved on. What school you send your child is also dependant on the child themself. Some kids simply don't fit the private school model and would flourish in a state school environment - this is something that has to be considered.

I think the most I can do as a parent is work hard to provide my son with options (good state and the possiblity of private and grammar schools) so that when the time comes we can take the best available option. But what I won't do is send my child to the local state school as a matter of socialist principle as Rick Chasey asserted earlier in the thread.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

But what I won't do is send my child to the local state school as a matter of socialist principle as Rick Chasey asserted earlier in the thread.

[skinhead approach]

Wot u sayin' 'bout me mom? I'll 'ave u.

[/skinhead approach]

*shrugs* whatever. I think the state school system would work better if everyone attended it, rather than just the people who can't afford an alternative. I recon that'll make things less socially immobile. That's all.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

RJS,

I spent the next four years at college undoing the damage my school did to my academic development. That unlikable part of my personality? Yes, that would be the social conditioning I developed at school.

My school was 3rd from bottom in the Ofsted league tables at one point when I attended. It's a Harris Tech now. Reputation was that bad they done away with it. Thing is there were good teachers who tried but didn't have the support, funding or leadership they needed to fulfil their ability as teachers. It was also blighted by the socio-economically deprived area and the values of many of the parents living in that area, who frankly didn't give a f*ck.

Sorry, 'moaning' is probably unfair, and I'm not trying to make light of your experiences; it just struck me that if you've achieved what you have in spite of the poor secondary school, then perhaps it's influence on future life prospects is being overplayed.

Clearly the educational landscape has changed a great deal since we were at school, so our personal experiences are probably not fair indicators of the current state of (erm) state-provided education. I also think you correctly identify that if the leadership isn't there at the top of a school - head + governors - then a few gifted teachers aren't going to be able to turn it around on their own. I'm no particular fan of Academies, but they do seem to show that if you have the leadership there, then a deprived area need not prevent a state school from excelling. The leadership also extends to the parents: if the school shows what can be done, then that general belief in the value of education is likely to improve.

rick_chasey

I see the data originally posted, and I look a the fundamental difference between the UK education system and those on the continent. The overriding difference I see is that attitude and use of private schools. That and a bit of logic leads me to conclude what I've posted before.

The people who are arguing against me - are you comfortable with the high level of social immobility? If you are, why? If not, what would you suggest?

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

But what I won't do is send my child to the local state school as a matter of socialist principle as Rick Chasey asserted earlier in the thread.

[skinhead approach]

Wot u sayin' 'bout me mom? I'll 'ave u.

[/skinhead approach]

*shrugs* whatever. I think the state school system would work better if everyone attended it, rather than just the people who can't afford an alternative. I recon that'll make things less socially immobile. That's all.

You know I actually find you quite immature and lacking humility. I mean, sure, you present yourself as intelligent and well read. However, you simply cannot admit to being wrong or that you might be wrong or that those in disagreement with you may have a point.

When you are actually presented with a valid and plausible counter argument (like Greg66's earlier in this thread or my own when pointing out 'that you may think differently') instead of responding in a constructive manner and acknowledging the validity of the other persons point you resort to trolling or railroading the discussion back to your already shot down point of view.

If you do ever get a stab at a career within the political arena I do hope you learn to look at things from all perspectives. It will do you well in life and professionally as will admitting your mistakes and where you might have gone wrong.

Now then, I've taken the time to write this so that next time when I fall upon simply calling you a 'prick with short man syndrome' you will understand where I'm coming from.

notsoblue

I can't believe DDD called RC a prick.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

But what I won't do is send my child to the local state school as a matter of socialist principle as Rick Chasey asserted earlier in the thread.

[skinhead approach]

Wot u sayin' 'bout me mom? I'll 'ave u.

[/skinhead approach]

*shrugs* whatever. I think the state school system would work better if everyone attended it, rather than just the people who can't afford an alternative. I recon that'll make things less socially immobile. That's all.

You know I actually find you quite immature and lacking humility. I mean, sure, you present yourself as intelligent and well read. However, you simply cannot admit to being wrong or that you might be wrong or that those in disagreement with you may have a point.

When you are actually presented with a valid and plausible counter argument (like Greg66's earlier in this thread or my own when pointing out 'that you may think differently') instead of responding in a constructive manner and acknowledging the validity of the other persons point you resort to trolling or railroading the discussion back to your already shot down point of view.


.

I haven't seen any counter arguments yet - only arguments about the provenance of my opinions . I certainly haven't seen either alternative arguments to mine re social mobility, or anyone suggesting why they're comfortable with the data first posted.

---

With my mod hat on:

You're entirely entitled to a) disagree with me and b) be thoroughly irritated by my opinions. < That's what a forum is about.

I've been quite civil bar a little family guy clip or two .

I suggest you don't start calling people names.

EKE_38BPM

notsoblue wrote:

I can't believe DDD called RC a prick.

I can't believe he called him short!

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

RJS,

I spent the next four years at college undoing the damage my school did to my academic development. That unlikable part of my personality? Yes, that would be the social conditioning I developed at school.

My school was 3rd from bottom in the Ofsted league tables at one point when I attended. It's a Harris Tech now. Reputation was that bad they done away with it. Thing is there were good teachers who tried but didn't have the support, funding or leadership they needed to fulfil their ability as teachers. It was also blighted by the socio-economically deprived area and the values of many of the parents living in that area, who frankly didn't give a f*ck.

Sorry, 'moaning' is probably unfair, and I'm not trying to make light of your experiences; it just struck me that if you've achieved what you have in spite of the poor secondary school, then perhaps it's influence on future life prospects is being overplayed.

I'm proud of what I have achieved and believe me I don't turn my nose up to where I've come from and what I've learned coming from there. But you have to understand that I was determined to turn what was largely negative influences into a positive outcome. There are a bunch of us that are successful in terms of wealth and stuff but we fought to achieve so our kids don't have to.

It's like my Grandparents worked 2 -3 jobs so their kids didn't have to. Our parents worked hard so we could reap the rewards and ergo people aren't socially mobile but generations are.

Clearly the educational landscape has changed a great deal since we were at school, so our personal experiences are probably not fair indicators of the current state of (erm) state-provided education. I also think you correctly identify that if the leadership isn't there at the top of a school - head + governors - then a few gifted teachers aren't going to be able to turn it around on their own. I'm no particular fan of Academies, but they do seem to show that if you have the leadership there, then a deprived area need not prevent a state school from excelling. The leadership also extends to the parents: if the school shows what can be done, then that general belief in the value of education is likely to improve.

Academies do appear to be doing a superb job. The point of this though is that I strive to achieve and succeed in life so that my son doesn't need to consider an academy in a deprived area.

cyclingprop

EKE_38BPM wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I can't believe DDD called RC a prick.

I can't believe he called him short!

I can't believe he didn't mock his spectral chino collection!

rick_chasey

cyclingprop wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I can't believe DDD called RC a prick.

I can't believe he called him short!

I can't believe he didn't mock his spectral chino collection!

That's because that's totally fly. (is that what you say nowadays?).

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

I see the data originally posted, and I look a the fundamental difference between the UK education system and those on the continent. The overriding difference I see is that attitude and use of private schools. That and a bit of logic leads me to conclude what I've posted before.

The people who are arguing against me - are you comfortable with the high level of social immobility? If you are, why? If not, what would you suggest?

"High level of social immobility"? I don't buy that in the first place. It may be higher than in other European countries, but to describe it as "high" in absolute terms suggests we still live in a feudal society, which is patently wrong.

The social immobility to which you refer in a schools context concerns a relatively narrow demographic: it is those children in the state system who could (at the lowest) match their peers in the private system if they had the opportunity to do so.

How would I address this? Not by hamstringing those in the private system. They are not the problem, or part of it. They are then benchmark. Nothing more.

I'd address the education that the affected children are getting (or not getting) in the state system. I'd test state educated children regularly, purely to identify the very brightest. I'd stream ruthlessly. If need be, I'd identify the best teachers in my area, and the brightest pupils, and pair them up in a hothouse pooled from across a number of schools. I'd inculcate those pupils from the outset with the notion that their natural place was at the very best universities. I'd have then visit there regularly, building bridges with admissions tutors. I'd get alumni from those Universities to speak to the pupils. I'd do my damnedest to instil a conceit in those pupils that they belong at the very top of life's pile.

Do that, and I would be confident in my own mind that I hadn't let down the brightest pupils in the state system.

In the process, I would have turned the state system into a two tier two speed system. I would have emulated the private system within the state system, without the fees. But hey, if you want to produce winners, you're going to have to have some losers too, right?

cyclingprop

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I see the data originally posted, and I look a the fundamental difference between the UK education system and those on the continent. The overriding difference I see is that attitude and use of private schools. That and a bit of logic leads me to conclude what I've posted before.

The people who are arguing against me - are you comfortable with the high level of social immobility? If you are, why? If not, what would you suggest?

"High level of social immobility"? I don't buy that in the first place. It may be higher than in other European countries, but to describe it as "high" in absolute terms suggests we still live in a feudal society, which is patently wrong.

The social immobility to which you refer in a schools context concerns a relatively narrow demographic: it is those children in the state system who could (at the lowest) match their peers in the private system if they had the opportunity to do so.

How would I address this? Not by hamstringing those in the private system. They are not the problem, or part of it. They are then benchmark. Nothing more.

I'd address the education that the affected children are getting (or not getting) in the state system. I'd test state educated children regularly, purely to identify the very brightest. I'd stream ruthlessly. If need be, I'd identify the best teachers in my area, and the brightest pupils, and pair them up in a hothouse pooled from across a number of schools. I'd inculcate those pupils from the outset with the notion that their natural place was at the very best universities. I'd have then visit there regularly, building bridges with admissions tutors. I'd get alumni from those Universities to speak to the pupils. I'd do my damnedest to instil a conceit in those pupils that they belong at the very top of life's pile.

Do that, and I would be confident in my own mind that I hadn't let down the brightest pupils in the state system.

In the process, I would have turned the state system into a two tier two speed system. I would have emulated the private system within the state system, without the fees. But hey, if you want to produce winners, you're going to have to have some losers too, right?

What is your strategy for dealing with the inevitable media outcry and public dissatisfaction at "letting kids down". Oh yeah we have that now anyway :twisted:

Pint of doom anyone?