Education

[Hedgecutter]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's an absolute myth to suggest that the best management and teaching is provided in the schools with the best performing pupils though.  In my (by definition, admittedly narrow) experience, a case could just as readily be constructed to argue the opposite.

Until two of my cousins got jobs as teachers at different private schools straight out of their teacher training, I had presumed that private schools would have employed teachers with more experience with the lure of higher pay.  Both got firsts in their respective bachelor degrees prior to going to teacher college, but other than that they both grew up up in a middle class village and attended the local cooncil school, so it can't be put down to an elite class thing.

[ICTChris]

I think some of this is tied into the rise of parental anxiety and helicopter parenting that you see in culture generally in the last few decades. I know parents who have absolutely insane ideas about schools. One guy I worked with was set on sending his daughter private because he thought his local school was rife with drug dealing and violence. His local school was, er, Lasswade High School, hardly the school from Coach Carter. Another friend of mine is apparently going to send their boy private because of the knife crime in Edinburgh schools [emoji53] I don’t think there has been a single incidence of knife crime in an Edinburgh school in the last twenty years. This is someone who has shared pro independence' pro BLM, anti Brexit content on social media just about every day doe the last five years as well.

[Gaz]

Maybe more folk would go into apprenticeships if they were legally required to pay a decent wage rather than a 20p mix-up per 8-hour shift.

[Gnash]

As someone who went to both state and private schools, I feel qualified to say that:

1 hour ago, Hedgecutter said:

Although status undoubtedly plays a part, I had always been under the impression that part of sending kids to expensive private schools was to significantly reduce the chance of their kids mingling with the schemies, who  can't afford the tuition fees and are more likely to under-perform for a variety of reasons.  Even if the standard of teaching wasn't any different, going private would significantly reduce the risk of your child getting involved with  'the wrong crowd' and potentially under-performing as a result of this.

^This is correct.

1 hour ago, Turkmenbashi said:

Adding to this I think it's all about networking as well right from a young age. So you know all correct people when you grow to help get and good jobs and marry the right types.

^This is not correct.

 

As an aside, I live in a reasonably well off area with a choice of private schools within travelling distance and everyone I know (including me) sends their kids to the local state school.  That's despite about 50% of the high school intake being from, to it put politely, the wrong side of the tracks.

[Mark Connolly]

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

 

One fact I’ve discovered in this whole episode is that state school pupils do better at University than private school pupils - higher proportion of firsts anyway.

My wife is a teacher and has taught at quite a few schools, including some very highly ranked ones in Edinburgh. All had good and bad aspects to them but you are clearly in a better position if the kids are motivated by education and it’s valued.

I know a few folk who teach in independent schools who accept that their establishments are excellent at getting pupils to University, while not necessarily preparing them for it. The support that pupils get is fantastic, but definitely has a negative effect on their development of independent learning. Of course, on the other side, state pupils absolutely deserve more support, and it shouldn't be a case of either/or for either side.

I also know of people who have sent their kids to independent schools in order to keep them in mainstream schooling. There are plenty of kids in there who simply wouldn't cope in their local state school for various reasons. There are also plenty of teachers in the same boat!

I would love for there to be no reason for the split system, but I'd prefer to see private and state sector working together to narrow the gaps before moving towards that the regular demands to just bin private education altogether.

[coprolite]

3 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

Although status undoubtedly plays a part, I had always been under the impression that part of sending kids to expensive private schools was to significantly reduce the chance of their kids mingling with the schemies, who  can't afford the tuition fees and are more likely to under-perform for a variety of reasons.  Even if the standard of teaching wasn't any different, going private would significantly reduce the risk of your child getting involved with  'the wrong crowd' and potentially under-performing as a result of this.

The flip side of this is that private schoolkids will be mingling with moneyed types more often, which in itself opens doors. 

[Monkey Tennis]

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

I think some of this is tied into the rise of parental anxiety and helicopter parenting that you see in culture generally in the last few decades. I know parents who have absolutely insane ideas about schools. One guy I worked with was set on sending his daughter private because he thought his local school was rife with drug dealing and violence. His local school was, er, Lasswade High School, hardly the school from Coach Carter. Another friend of mine is apparently going to send their boy private because of the knife crime in Edinburgh schools I don’t think there has been a single incidence of knife crime in an Edinburgh school in the last twenty years. This is someone who has shared pro independence' pro BLM, anti Brexit content on social media just about every day doe the last five years as well.

One of the issues attached to weird perspectives on education is that everybody has an opinion about schools, because they used to go to one, even if it happened several decades ago.

I don't pretend to understand what most jobs consist of on a daily basis, but every bugger thinks they've a handle on what being a teacher involves.

[Mr Waldo]

4 hours ago, ICTChris said:

 Another friend of mine is apparently going to send their boy private because of the knife crime in Edinburgh schools I don’t think there has been a single incidence of knife crime in an Edinburgh school in the last twenty years. This is someone who has shared pro independence' pro BLM, anti Brexit content on social media just about every day doe the last five years as well.

So because someone worries about (historically) non knife crime in Edingurgh schools they are bonkers, but because they are SNP voting Marxists they should have intelligence.

Or is it that they do not have a clue?

Regardless, I seriously worry about this country.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Mr Waldo

[Raidernation]

I don't pretend to understand what most jobs consist of on a daily basis, but every bugger thinks they've a handle on what being a teacher involves.

Oh so much this.
“I’ve went til school, I know what yous do, easy job!”

I had a mother at parents evening tell me “....I don’t discipline her at home, that’s your job” about her 16yo nedette. (School in Edinburgh which shall remain nameless)

I would say it’s the same over here too, everyone either has been at school or watched Disney so they know better than we do!

Worst aspect here is the whole “graduation” requirement for most jobs. To graduate you basically have to stay at school until 18 (senior = 6th year) and pass to even get a basic job, so schools are full of kids who really should have left at 16 because they have no academic interest but are legally forced to stay!

And don’t get me started on inner-city schools (and Charter schools) boasting/demanding 100% “college acceptance” when maybe only 2 or 3 out of 500+ who do get accepted actually want to (or can afford to*) go to a college!

*by “afford” I don’t just mean $ but also time, family needs, etc.

I still stand by it being the best job in the world though and I’m about to start year 21 as a teacher!

[ICTChris]

So because someone worries about (historically) non knife crime in Edingurgh schools they are bonkers, but because they are SNP voting Marxists they should have intelligence.
Or is it that they do not have a clue?
Regardless, I seriously worry about this country.

I was pointing out the disparity between their purported concern for injustice and social consciousness and their plan to privately educate their children.

I’m old enough to remember there being controversy over Tony and Cherie Blair educating their children at a Church of England school and Diane Abbot taking a lot of flak for sending her son to a private school (she said that black boys do badly in the comprehensives in South London). I’m sure Harriet Hartman sent her kids to a private school as well.

I also found this article from Joan McAlpine, current SNP MSP about her decision to send her kids to a private school. I may be wrong but I think her insistence on doing this lead her then husband, Pat Kane, to file for divorce.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joan-mcalpinei-admit-i-sent-my-children-to-private-school-d38grsscq8n

[The_Kincardine]

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's an absolute myth to suggest that the best management and teaching is provided in the schools with the best performing pupils though.  In my (by definition, admittedly narrow) experience, a case could just as readily be constructed to argue the opposite.

I've now had three weans complete secondary education so, of course, I'm an expert and you're half right.  Two of mine went to a well regarded comp in Oxfordshire and the other to a grammar in Buck.  I'd say that, by Years 12 and 13, the difference in teaching competence between the two is marginal.  Having been to lots of parent reviews  over the years I can't say the  comp teachers were in any way inferior to their grammar counterparts. 

BUT I'd say there's a big difference in attitude and ethos   Using a representative sample of me and  my son's rugby-playing pals at different grammar schools in South Bucks I'd say that selective schools are much pushier and demand higher standards than they could get away with in comp schools.  Our comp was pretty laissez faire whereas our grammar was highly demanding.  Of course, you have to have pupils and parents who buy in to this for it to be acceptable.

At Years 7 and 8 the contrast was stark.  At the grammar the introduction to Secondary was good, smooth and effective.  At the comp it was an absolute bun fight.  Of course, the difference in intake played a big part as you had classes of boys who were eager to please and to learn and had just passed the 11+ so the teachers were on easy street.  The very mixed intake at the comp contrasted with this but, more importantly, the calibre of teacher at Years 7 and 8 was markedly different. 

The early years of secondary schools seem to have the young/junior/less competent teachers trying to manage the most difficult classes whereas their elders and betters have maybe classes of a dozen eager A Level students who actually want to learn about Hamlet's relationship with Gertrude.  I know the idea of PRP has been eschewed on here (and probably rightly) but if teaching is worth a curdy then it has to align the best teachers with the worst set of pupils and reward them accordingly.

On a tangent, the best state schools in Britain are selective and have rugby as their main sport.  The worst are comps which prioritise football.  This can't be a coincidence...

[Monkey Tennis]

4 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I've now had three weans complete secondary education so, of course, I'm an expert and you're half right.  Two of mine went to a well regarded comp in Oxfordshire and the other to a grammar in Buck.  I'd say that, by Years 12 and 13, the difference in teaching competence between the two is marginal.  Having been to lots of parent reviews  over the years I can't say the  comp teachers were in any way inferior to their grammar counterparts. 

BUT I'd say there's a big difference in attitude and ethos   Using a representative sample of me and  my son's rugby-playing pals at different grammar schools in South Bucks I'd say that selective schools are much pushier and demand higher standards than they could get away with in comp schools.  Our comp was pretty laissez faire whereas our grammar was highly demanding.  Of course, you have to have pupils and parents who buy in to this for it to be acceptable.

At Years 7 and 8 the contrast was stark.  At the grammar the introduction to Secondary was good, smooth and effective.  At the comp it was an absolute bun fight.  Of course, the difference in intake played a big part as you had classes of boys who were eager to please and to learn and had just passed the 11+ so the teachers were on easy street.  The very mixed intake at the comp contrasted with this but, more importantly, the calibre of teacher at Years 7 and 8 was markedly different. 

The early years of secondary schools seem to have the young/junior/less competent teachers trying to manage the most difficult classes whereas their elders and betters have maybe classes of a dozen eager A Level students who actually want to learn about Hamlet's relationship with Gertrude.  I know the idea of PRP has been eschewed on here (and probably rightly) but if teaching is worth a curdy then it has to align the best teachers with the worst set of pupils and reward them accordingly.

On a tangent, the best state schools in Britain are selective and have rugby as their main sport.  The worst are comps which prioritise football.  This can't be a coincidence...

There's a problem at the end there, with your casual use of the terms 'best' and 'worst'.  Specifically in this context, what do you mean by them? 

[The_Kincardine]

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

There's a problem at the end there, with your casual use of the terms 'best' and 'worst'.  Specifically in this context, what do you mean by them? 

Well it was partly tongue in cheek - you know this - but there is a big gap in academic achievement between rugby-playing grammars and football-playing comps.

[David W]

On 14/08/2020 at 13:38, 101 said:

Not changed views I think it's highlighted the go to Uni or bust attitude of a lot of young people and their families. I was very nearly forced into going to Uni by my school and one teacher offered to fill out my application on UCAS for me in the last week of the application process being open. 

Thankfully a lot more work is going into "positive destinations" if they could increase that and ditch league tables we would be in a better place. 

It's a bit of a pedantic point but in Scotland, there are no official league tables. It's newspapers taking data that's released by the government or SQA and turning it into a "table", so unless they stop releasing the data there's no way to stop tables being produced. I suppose people would argue that the government know the data will be used that way.

At my school we don't use the measure that the papers use; we use a different one as it makes us look better. It's all a bit silly.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well it was partly tongue in cheek - you know this - but there is a big gap in academic achievement between rugby-playing grammars and football-playing comps.

Yes I knew that, but it's a particular bugbear of mine, that how good a school is, is regarded as a question solely of academic achievement, considered in the baldest terms. 

I'm not going to pretend for a minute that academic achievement isn't important, because it absolutely is.  However, to conclude that the schools who house the kids who do best in this regard are in turn the best schools is palpable nonsense.

It's like saying the best hospitals are those which admit the least unwell patients.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes I knew that, but it's a particular bugbear of mine, that how good a school is, is regarded as a question solely of academic achievement, considered in the baldest terms. 

I'm not going to pretend for a minute that academic achievement isn't important, because it absolutely is.  However, to conclude that the schools who house the kids who do best in this regard are in turn the best schools is palpable nonsense.

It's like saying the best hospitals are those which admit the least unwell patients.

So just focus in on one small point and rip the arse out of it, why don't you?

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

So just focus in on one small point and rip the arse out of it, why don't you?

Well that's a touchy response.

That one small point is at the heart of what I'm saying.   Schools can afford to have differences in ethos, according to their intake. 

My own perspective, both through work and as a parent, is less concerned with the more obvious delineation that is evident in other parts of the country between private/state or grammar/comp.   How schools perform owes a huge amount to intake.  Attainment is measured more subtly in terms of value added, but this doesn't really impact on the wider view of how good a school is. 

The language of one school being bad, yet another good, based on the flimsiest of facile evidence pisses me off.  

[sugna]

15 minutes ago, David W said:

It's a bit of a pedantic point but in Scotland, there are no official league tables. It's newspapers taking data that's released by the government or SQA and turning it into a "table", so unless they stop releasing the data there's no way to stop tables being produced. I suppose people would argue that the government know the data will be used that way.

At my school we don't use the measure that the papers use; we use a different one as it makes us look better. It's all a bit silly.

It's not in the least bit pedantic - it's absolutely fundamental and you're right to raise it.

To a first and second approximation, if you show me a list of schools ordered by deprivation (SIMD deciles are plenty), I will prepare for your delectation a list of those same schools ordered by attainment, requiring no further information in order to do so.

Tom Hunter was on TV a few years ago, marvelling at the great academic achievements of (I think) Dunblane HS, which he was visiting on one of his regular outings. It was presented as "what can other schools learn from how this school is exceeding all expectations?!"

The simple answer, that no one mentioned, was "get less deprived pupils".

This is recognized in the actual Scottish Government aims, such as trying to reduce the gap between higher and lower deprivation  students. Another aim, mentioned earlier in this thread, is increasing "positive destinations" (not just university places).

But the tables published by newspapers undermine such enlightened thinking, and parents revert to type and look after their (children's) own interests, rather than taking the longer view. It's perfectly natural, but I think misguided because the tables are so very misleading.

[The_Kincardine]

9 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Well that's a touchy response.

That one small point is at the heart of what I'm saying.   Schools can afford to have differences in ethos, according to their intake. 

My own perspective, both through work and as a parent, is less concerned with the more obvious delineation that is evident in other parts of the country between private/state or grammar/comp.   How schools perform owes a huge amount to intake.  Attainment is measured more subtly in terms of value added, but this doesn't really impact on the wider view of how good a school is. 

Of course it does but how schools manage that intake is vital.  Too many comps have the worst teachers managing the most difficult classes.  Also, too many comps (based on a representative sample of 1) fail to push the more able pupils.

Plus the whole notion of 'comprehensive schools only' is about the worst idea possible.  This was a 60s attempt at social engineering that has utterly failed.  Absolutely no one with any sense would think comprehensive education was a good idea.

[Monkey Tennis]

10 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Of course it does but how schools manage that intake is vital.  Too many comps have the worst teachers managing the most difficult classes.  Also, too many comps (based on a representative sample of 1) fail to push the more able pupils.

 

The comments above genuinely don't chime with my experience at all.  I'd worry though that in as far as the issues referred to exist, they might be exacerbated in a selective system.

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Monkey Tennis