Positive discrimination being battled by public schools Post Reply

[Mrs Contractor Mum]

Totally in agreement with you momtomum

[FraggleRocks]

Lots of ignorance on this thread.

Not least, if private schools were abolished (which actually isn't the point of most people who suggest that positive discrimination for state school pupils might in many instances be a good thing), more places at top flight universities would NOT go to foreign students. UK students are recruited to unis under a 'quota' system, which caps the overall level of student numbers; foreign students are recruited from outside this system. So the two, quite simply, do not compete for places. In fact, recent changes to the uni system allows MORE UK students to be enrolled than was the case previously. It is a myth that the higher fees of foreign students leads to UK students missing out in any way.

If you have a bright child at an independent school, who is able to keep pace with the academic standards and will thrive at a top university, then you do not need to feel threatened by suggestions that children from lower income backgrounds should make up a higher proportion of places.

If you have a mediocre child in the independent sector, who has been pushed through a system which they have struggled to cope with, has had lots of extra paid-for tuition then yes, you probably should feel threatened. There are children at state schools who have not been prepared as well for university entrance processes who will go on to better things than your child - and deserve that place at that university.

Since ALL NVN children are clearly in the 'bright child' bracket, I don't think any of you need to worry about this issue............

It is in the entire economy's interest that appropriately able children who have not been groomed for years in how to pass an Oxbridge interview (as an extreme example) are given some lenience and are not compared directly with Eton students who have been prepared for this scenario from the age of 4. I'm not denigrating the Eton students by the way, just saying that talent exists elsewhere that sometimes needs to be given a leg up.

[chelseadad]

Some facts to add to this rather bizarre conversation:

Average London Independent Day school: c£10,000 per annum per child
State schools: c£5,200 per annum per child.

It's a big difference, but not as big as you might think. State schools can improve (and even outperform independents as they used to two decades ago) but it means having a dynamic, pluralised state school system, where parents have genuine choice, schools have greater methodological liberty and the importance of educating ALL of our children is held at a higher priority.

If we take up the challenge of improving state school education, we might make conversation about state versus independent, moot.

[coldatchristmas]

There may be some ignorance but I a. Not sure where it is coming from.

http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/study/underg ... ional.html

Kings college Cambrigege, in the thread above, would seem to indicate that all students are competing with each other. No matter where they are from.

[coldatchristmas]

We make offers to those students who we think show the most academic promise. We can admit as many international candidates as we want to based on the strength of the applications. There is therefore no set number or proportion of places for international students: we are only interested in your academic ability.

[FraggleRocks]

I don't know about Kings Cam however HEFCE quotas is what you should look at and the removal of quota at AAB level for UK/EU students (EU students are treated just the same as UK under free movement of people laws so there's direct comp there) which at the top end of the academic pile may well lead to an increase in uk student numbers vs international - opposite may be true at lower grade levels.

I'd love it if my taxes were increased so that state funding for school pupils could double, to match funding in private schools.... I suspect I'm in a minority though! Also the effect of this happening would likely be a doubling of private school fees who would have to get ever more lavish facilities and curricula in order to maintain differentiation between state and indies.

I'm not rabidly anti public schools by the way. I was privately educated. I just don't think you all need to be fretting about this issue. Encouraging your children to consider universities world wide would also be sensible.

[FraggleRocks]

Didn't have time to find a link earlier. But the story here explains the quota system and why UK (/EU) students do not compete with other international students for places as they are admitted under different systems - essentially international admissions lead to increased numbers of students overall, not reduced numbers of 'home' students. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... than-wolff

Since that article was written the cap on the most able 'home' students (AAB) has been removed.

Sorry for sounding grumpy, re the ignorance comment. I was tired and had had a bad day. However, I do find the stance of the Telegraph article that was originally linked to distasteful and the tone of some of the responses rather narrow-minded.

[schoolgatesmum]

Let's not forget that only 7% of the population go to independent school. That's a whopping 93% who are state educated.

[MadCurls]

Momtomum- spot on!

[wasateacher]

Chelseadad: you say that the difference between an average of £10,000 and £5000 is not as big as one might think. It still means that the average private school pupil has double the expenditure than the state school pupil. This cuts a class size from 30 to 15 - that is a huge difference.

There are other averages: the "average" state school pupil, given the same "A"levels, will outperform the "average" private school pupil, which implies that the "average" state education is a better preparation for later life.

Looking at the average GCSE performance indicates that there is a substantial number of private schools performing far less well than would be accepted in the state sector.

Since the state sector has the responsibility for educating everyone rejected by the private sector or not able or willing to apply, the state sector should be commended for its performance. It has some brilliant schools - why do we look at the successes in the private sector, but only look at the weaknesses of the state sector? Let us compare the weaknesses in both or the strengths in both.

On an international scale, why do we look to Sweden and the US, which are hardly role models, rather than Finland which should be?

Was selective state education in the UK all it was cracked up to be when 80% of children in London failed the 11+?

[GillNic]

I simply have to weigh in to wholeheartedly and emphatically agree with Gayville about abolishing the private/state school division. It is the single most decisive factor in creating, perpetuating and deepening social division and resentment in England.
I come from Ireland where most people (not all) go to state schools, so there is a far FAR lower level of snobbery and exclusivity regarding university places and old boys networks and social progression and mobility.
As Gayville rightly argues, if there are no private schools the whole society - ALL parents - would be galvanised behind the one school system. Imagine the powerful force that would create? All those pushy A-type Mums (I include myself!) involved in making all schools great!!? Phenomenal.

I have been genuinely shocked and saddened since coming here 11 years ago at how the public school system damages British society. I love London, absolutely love it, and am very happy here. But to see the 'fixing' of a child's future age 3/4 when they start going to montessori and private nurseries that start them on the fast/gold-plated-track to Oxbridge, with such a head-start from so young, it takes your breath away. As parents my husband and I are so torn between wanting our son to get the education he deserves that means his brain and talents are utilised and equip him, and the prospect of him being a snotty toff and part of an elite who thinks they are better than 'the other's....

And 'coldatchristmas' you seem to be totally missing the point - 'they won't get their places at the top unis' - WELL, if they can't earn their places in a more open, fairer competitive environment then THEY DON'T DESERVE THOSE PLACES that have been effectively 'bought' for them, and perhaps we'll have some of the REAL brightest and best in top jobs running the state and industry, banks and legal system...then maybe we wouldn't be in such a dire situation!!
Some of the GENUINELY most talented, bright, creative of our society have so much more to offer, and are being lost to the 'top unis' and ending up in more open-access creative industries where Britain does genuinely excel. Imagine if those characters could be harnessed through unis to direct their energies and talents to more traditional professions? Wow, what a country that would be.

And you know, just look across the water to France for a system where virtually the whole population go to state schools...they still have 'top unis' full of bright kids.....from ALL SORTS of backgrounds. Now, admittedly they have other issues like bureaucracy and very rigid and traditional systems, which happily England has less of...so England could do even better!

As I sense Gayville does, I feel very passionately about this...

[schoolgatesmum]

Have to say that I agree as well. It always strikes me as bizarre that we have schools which can never be accessed by the vast majority of our society. I consider myself pretty well off but there's certainly no way I could afford to send my four children to private school. The fact that I am completely state educated and want my children to also be state educated is besides the point. It's the fact that I don't have the choice - along with probably 90% of the population. So 7% of the population are not mixing with 93% of the rest of society - not really surprising we have a socially divided society is it?

[MGMidget]

We seem to have an idealistic debate here.

Interesting point that virtually all children in France go to state schools. I googled and found this which suggests that 15% of children in France go to private schools.


http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-educatio ... .asp?ID=95

I think in many capitalist countries there is a private school option. It is just that some English private schools have international reputations so are better known.

As far as the original poster's point is concerned, I do think there is a need for some positive discrimination by universities for pupils from state schools, precisely because it is harder for them to achieve the same grades as those in good private schools, given the same intelligence level and same motivation. Universities naturally want the best people on their courses and the best can also mean those with the best potential (so raw exam results are not the only measure of potential). I understand the same positive discrimination can happen at private secondary school level where the schools may have different expectations of applicants from state schools to those in private because they know they have not had the same opportunities.

I don't think private school parents need to be bothered about this 'positive discrimination' as the education bought still gives the children skills and abilities to take through life.

Speaking as someone who was state educated and went on the do a degree course that was dominated by ex private school pupils I would say private schools do develop a lot of 'soft skills' in pupils which help them be successful in life and it may be one of the reasons they dominate top jobs, not just the 'old boys network' although that may have helped them too. The old boys network is also about the parents connections in any case (and I have seen many examples in my working life of parents connections providing the much needed career break), not just about which school they went to.

Personally though I hate the attitude that something good and successful should be abolished because not everyone can have it. Its a horrible trait in British society that we resent anyone more successful than us. I never had these opportunities but so what? It is still possible with the right motivation to have a successful life and I don't begrudge people who work hard for extra 'luxuries' in life, whatever they may be! There is not equality in the state sector because there are better/worse opportunities depending on your postal address for example. The world is never equal but my view is we all have to make the best of what is available to us! We would have to live in a utopia with the same financial resources, same parental input, the same highly regulated and controlled level of schooling etc to all have the same equal chances in life!

As far as saying private schools are less successful because they enter fewer people for GCSEs, I think there could be many reasons for this, not necessarily that the schools are poorer quality. One reason, I would speculate, could be that they may be unimportant in the private sector where most pupils are aiming for A levels/international baccalaureat and degrees and will have done a broad-ranging exam at 13+ for common entrance to demonstrate their abilities in a range of subjects. Private schools with poor results are likely to fail as parents have the buying power to move their children elsewhere if they are not happy.

[Gayville]

"Personally though I hate the attitude that something good and successful should be abolished because not everyone can have it. Its a horrible trait in British society that we resent anyone more successful than us"

I'm sorry but I don't resent private schools because they are good and succesful, I think it's just hideously unfair that a handful of children get given such a huge leg up in life, despite being no more intelligent than their state educated peers. And as I've said before, I may be an idealist, but what's wrong with that? If nobody aspired to change the system, then nothing would ever change.

I agree with the earlier poster who went to school in Ireland; interestingly, I went to state school in Scotland, where the majority of kids go to state school (only 3% attend private schools, as opposed to 7% in England). It seems that in countries where more children attend state school then those schools tend to be better than in countries where greater numbers of pupils go to private schools. Scotland has a rigorous state education system, and in my opinion is far more egalitarian and meritocratic than that in England.

[newmum83]

I hate some of the wording being banded around on this post.
The word 'muppet' to describe state school pupils is ignorant and offensive.
I went to a very normal state school.
I managed to get AAA at A-level and a first class degree from Sheffield Uni.
Also - what's the fascination with Oxbridge anyway? I would hate my daughter to go there - far too much pressure from what I hear.