Alleyns...doing their bit for the community?

[Mick Mac]

I don't think there is any difference. Dulwich College and Alleyns are both public schools. They were originally the same school - One was the upper school and the other was the lower school.

I think you have made up your own classification.

[rendelharris]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think there is any difference. Dulwich

> College and Alleyns are both public schools. They

> were originally the same school - One was the

> upper school and the other was the lower school.

>

> I think you have made up your own classification.

That's fine by me, if you believe they're both public schools by all means call them public schools - as I said, there's no legal definition of what a public school is and I freely admitted that the definition I gave was my own opinion. It's all absolutely subjective, I'm sure many Alleyn's alumni would describe it as a public school, conversely I used to know an Old Etonian living round here who thought it was hilarious that Dulwich had the cheek to call itself a public school - for him, public schools were Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Rugby, Westminster, Charterhouse and a couple of others. The term really has no meaning and anyway, as I said, schools are disassociating themselves from it now - if you look on either Dulwich or Alleyn's website (or Eton's for that matter) you won't find them calling themselves a public school.

[Mick Mac]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a local example, Dulwich is a public school,

> whereas JAGs and Alleyn's are private schools,

You made the definitive statement above - I wanted to understand what you meant by it - it turns out you feel its all so subjective and meaningless. I do wonder why you made such a clear statement in the first place.

I was genuinely interested that there may be a difference, but there isn't.

[LondonMix]

Ok, fair enough

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Mick, why do you always have to be so

> aggressive

> > and rude towards me?

>

> I'm teasing.

>

> However - I'm not so keen on how you open your

> responses to other people - "that's not true" or

> "that's not quite right / the case / the whole

> truth" comes across as you are the oracle ready to

> be there to educate us all. It makes me want to

> take up the challenge and debate - sorry if it's

> come across as rude.

>

> IMO its ok to say you disagree with someone - but

> to say someone else is wrong, or that there post

> is not true, can come across a bit teacher/pupil.

> Although I've probably done it myself a few times.

[????]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... in fact a number of excellent state schools

> are located in poor areas with extremely diverse

> intakes. Especially in London. To suggest that the

> state system entrenches privilege to the degree

> public schools do, is wide of the mark imo.

I agree, let's ask Shami Chakabrati or Diane Abbot or several other members of 'you know who's' cabal

[Mick Mac]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

To suggest that

> the

> > state system entrenches privilege to the degree

> > public schools do, is wide of the mark imo.

>

>

> I agree,

Everyone would agree - but no one actually "suggested" it in the first place.

[rendelharris]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

>

> To suggest that

> > the

> > > state system entrenches privilege to the

> degree

> > > public schools do, is wide of the mark imo.

> >

> >

> > I agree,

>

>

> Everyone would agree - but no one actually

> "suggested" it in the first place.

LondonMix did:

"I think private schools play there part in restricting social mobility (except for the poor students who get to attend via bursaries).

I think that the state school system does the same via distance based admissions. Using your financial resources to avoid bad schools entrenches privilege and reduces social mobility as much as private education does."

And I believe it was to that rahrahrah was replying.

[LondonMix]

I agree that in London, there are good state schools in areas that are not affluent. Also, significant investment and innovative strategies in poorer schools has led London to have the best overall performance of any region in England.

However, generally speaking this is not the case. The poorest 20% of children in this country were 4 times more likely to be in an inadequate school than those of the wealthiest 20%. Inequality in entrenched in the state school system and the impact of being in an inadequate school for a poor child is disproportionately higher as well.

From a parliament study on white working class under achievement: 'Twice the proportion of poor children attending an "outstanding" school will achieve five good GCSEs when compared with what the same group will achieve in "inadequate" schools. In contrast, the proportion of non-FSM children achieving this benchmark in "outstanding" schools is only 1.5 times greater than for equivalent peers attending schools that are rated as "inadequate"'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8907687/Ofsted-poor-children-being-let-down-by-inadequate-schools.html

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/education-committee/news/white-working-class-report/

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Using your financial resources to avoid bad

> schools

> > entrenches privilege and reduces social

> mobility

> > as much as private education does.

>

> This is simply not true. The social mix in a good

> comprehensive school will be immeasurably broader

> than in somewhere like Dulwich College.

[Mick Mac]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree, let's ask Shami Chakabrati or Diane Abbot

> or several other members of 'you know who's' cabal

Obviously off piste - but I used to think the best defence of this by a Labour politician would be to argue that with the Tories in power and not doing enough to improve state education, leaving them no option but to utilise private education until the state system righted itself or the benefits of private education were marginalised.

:)

To be honest I don't know how on an MPs salary alone, anyone could afford it.

[LondonMix]

State school pupils make up about 60% of Oxbridge pupils now from memory. This is still an sizeable under representation of course. However, if you were to break that down further, how many poor children attending under performing schools do you think would be in that state school cohort?

Social mobility isn't just about what keeps the rich, rich but also what keeps the poor, poor. Access to quality state education is massively influenced by wealth and therefore is a big part of the larger problem (in my view but also in the view of many researchers).

[Mick Mac]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix did:

>

> And I believe it was to that rahrahrah was

> replying.

LM made the point but didn't infer that that the state system entrenches privilege "to the degree" that public schools do

Some entrenchment of privilege but not to the same degree. Surely.

[LondonMix]

Mick and others-- I haven't broken down the stats to say what degree of impact each has but my point is that both are significant.

Anyhow, I don't judge parents (including politicians) for their choices on this. It is 100% human nature to use your assets to improve the life possibilities of your children, whether you buy into an area with decent schools or pay fees. Issues like this can't be addressed by individual action but via public policy derived through evidence based research. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we are going to see much of that from the current PM.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > LondonMix did:

>

>

> >

> > And I believe it was to that rahrahrah was

> > replying.

>

> LM made the point but didn't infer that that the

> state system entrenches privilege "to the degree"

> that public schools do

>

> Some entrenchment of privilege but not to the same

> degree. Surely.

"I think that the state school system does the same via distance based admissions. Using your financial resources to avoid bad schools entrenches privilege and reduces social mobility as much as private education does"

[Earl Aelfheah]

There's some slight of hand going on here IMO. The comprehensive system caters for people from all backgrounds. There are some schools which under perform sure - and there are still inequalities of course... this will be true of any system. But public schools are in the business of exclusivity. In the case of public schools, we're not talking about a small number of people gaming the system for some advantage, the whole system is set up to provide the children of the wealthy a huge advantage - They're set up in order to be exclusive. Offering a limited number of bursaries may provide some cover (and earn some tax breaks), but to suggest that the system doesn't fundamentally reproduce privilege, or to draw parallels with free, state funded education is disingenuous.

[Mick Mac]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> State school pupils make up about 60% of Oxbridge

> pupils now from memory. This is still an sizeable

> under representation of course.

OK TIN HAT TIME.

I wouldn't argue in favout of a proportionate representation of public/state school pupils at the best universities.

I believe that higher earners to some extent do so as a result of greater intelligence. Very generalist I know, but if you are smarter than your colleagues you are likely to progress and earn more.

Genetically, more intelligent parents should pass genes to their children - more intelligent parents have more intelligent children than the national average

Its wealthier parents who send their children to private school

Hence private school will have a more capable intake and paying better salaries and smaller class sizes have children best prepared for university.

Therefore its appropriate and not unexpected that their should be a weighting of private school children at the best universities

Having said that - no university should take children from private schools on anything other than proven ability as compared to state pupils - the entrance criteria must be a level playing field - by whatever means is available at hat time, be it A levels or entrance exam or interview to assess so far unproven potential.

The fact that what's gone before may not be a level playing field is irrelevant and to be resolved by long term government policy, but not by reverse discrimination.

[LondonMix]

Rahrah, there is no slight of hand. My point is that across the country the state school admissions system (when distanced based) is a barrier to social mobility as it reduces access to a quality education for the poor.

Fee paying schools also entrench privilege.

Parents, use their wealth intentionally to opt in to good state schools (or certainly avoid bad ones).

Parents with even more wealth, intentionally opt in to private education.

If you think getting rid of private schools alone will fix social mobility issues in the UK, I think you are very wrong.

[LondonMix]

I'm not saying it should be exactly proportionate though intelligence reverts to mean genetically so the link isn't necessarily as straightforward as you outline.

Anyhow, its been shown that state school pupils once at university outperform their independent school educated peers that achieved identical A-Levels by a significant margin. This has led to policy ideas regarding recognising that performance on standardized tests between state and independent pupils doesn't capture actual merit / capability and this should be reflected in admissions policy

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > State school pupils make up about 60% of

> Oxbridge

> > pupils now from memory. This is still an

> sizeable

> > under representation of course.

>

>

> OK TIN HAT TIME.

>

> I wouldn't argue in favout of a proportionate

> representation of public/state school pupils at

> the best universities.

>

> I believe that higher earners to some extent do so

> as a result of greater intelligence. Very

> generalist I know, but if you are smarter than

> your colleagues you are likely to progress and

> earn more.

>

> Genetically, more intelligent parents should pass

> genes to their children - more intelligent parents

> have more intelligent children than the national

> average

>

> Its wealthier parents who send their children to

> private school

>

> Hence private school will have a more capable

> intake and paying better salaries and smaller

> class sizes have children best prepared for

> university.

>

> Therefore its appropriate and not unexpected that

> their should be a weighting of private school

> children at the best universities

>

> Having said that - no university should take

> children from private schools on anything other

> than proven ability as compared - the entrance

> criteria must be a level paying field - by

> whatever means is available at hat time, be it A

> levels or entrance exam or interview to assess so

> far unproven potential.

>

> The fact that what's gone before may not be a

> level playing field is irrelevant and to be

> resolved by long term government policy, but not

> by reverse discrimination.

>

>

>

>

> Are we suggesting that public school education

> adds nothing

[LondonMix]

But again, the larger point I was making was that all state schools are not the same. Within the cohort that does well there is going to be a large overlap with access to high quality state schools. Access to high quality state schools itself has significant overlap with wealth so pretending like the only problem with social mobility in this country is private education is denying a huge part of the problem faced by the poor.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Eighty two per cent of primary schools are rated 'good' or 'outstanding'. There are many outstanding schools in socially and economically deprived areas. Their make up will be very different to a private school. Comprehensive schools do remarkable things and have a real impact on the life chances of hundreds of thousands of children.

To say "the system is not perfect, some people game it, it's not 100% fair in all cases" is one thing - of course admissions policies will skew intake in some areas, in certain circumstances.

But, the private system is completely different by many orders of magnitude. The system itself is set up to fundamentally reproduce privilege. That's the point of it. It's openly an proudly exclusive.

To try and draw parallels doesn't appear serious to me.

[rendelharris]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Having said that - no university should take

> children from private schools on anything other

> than proven ability as compared to state pupils -

> the entrance criteria must be a level playing

> field - by whatever means is available at hat

> time, be it A levels or entrance exam or interview

> to assess so far unproven potential.

>

> The fact that what's gone before may not be a

> level playing field is irrelevant and to be

> resolved by long term government policy, but not

> by reverse discrimination.

Given the massive advantages a public/private school has in terms of educating pupils - tiny class sizes, far better resources, longer access to pupils etc - saying that suddenly at university selection time "it's a level playing field now no matter what went before" is like starting a hundred metre race with one runner at 100m and one at 50m, then saying, even if the 100m starter loses by just a metre, we're only having a level playing field at the finish line, no matter what happened before.

[Earl Aelfheah]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But again, the larger point I was making was that

> all state schools are not the same. Within the

> cohort that does well there is going to be a large

> overlap with access to high quality state schools.

> Access to high quality state schools itself has

> significant overlap with wealth so pretending like

> the only problem with social mobility in this

> country is private education is denying a huge

> part of the problem faced by the poor.

But again - one system is designed and sets out to reproduce privilege. It's not the only mechanism by which this happens of course - but it is set up for exclusivity. The other is just imperfect.

[LondonMix]

Rahrah-- poor students are 4 times more likely to be in an inadequate school than the top 20% of wealthy children in the state system and they do much worse in those schools than they otherwise would and also worse than richer children do in inadequate schools.

If you don't think that's more than just 'not perfect', we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I am also not accusing parents of 'gaming' the system. Avoiding a bad school if you can afford to is simple human nature. All I'm saying is its that same human instinct that makes other parents choose private education or grammar schools or aim for outstanding state schools for that matter.

That the state school system's admission policy does not intentionally try to entrench privilege is irrelevant as to whether it actually has a negative impact on social mobility.

Policies that keep the rich rich are just as bad as policies that keep the poor poor.

[Earl Aelfheah]

BTW, I certainly don't think "getting rid of private schools alone will fix social mobility issues in the UK" and would never suggest such a stupid thing. My main objection with private schools is the pretense (amply articulated in this thread) that they're actually quite socially inclusive and do a lot to help mobility. Oh, and their status as charities with associated tax breaks. I understand why people want to ensure their kids have an advantage over others and are willing to pay for it. It's perfectly natural. But I get a bit fed up with the disingenuous attempts to dress it up as something else.

[Earl Aelfheah]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rahrah-- poor students are 4 times more likely to

> be in an inadequate school than the top 20% of

> wealthy children in the state system and they do

> much worse in those schools that they otherwise

> would and much worse than richer children do in

> inadequate schools.

>

> If you don't think that's more than just 'not

> perfect', we'll have to agree to disagree.

>

> I am also not accusing parents of 'gaming' the

> system. Avoiding a bad school if you can afford

> to is simple human nature. All I'm saying is its

> that same human instinct that makes other parents

> choose private education or grammar schools.

>

> That the state school system's admission policy

> does not intentionally try to entrench privilege

> is irrelevant as to whether it actually has a

> negative impact on social mobility.

>

> Policies that keep the rich rich are just as bad

> as policies that keep the poor poor.

But you're not looking at the net effect of both systems. You're saying that poor schools are more likely to be found in poor areas. True. But the vast majority of schools are good and cater for kids from all kinds of backgrounds and many will be in poor areas also. So this means the system is imperfect. We should strive to make it better and fairer. But generally, at a high level it's a damn site more equitable than the private school system, which sets out to, and successfully does, reproduce privilege.

To suggest that a comprehensive system is bad for social mobility when compared with the private school system, is laughable frankly. I can't quite work out if you're serious about this or just locked into your argument.

Those from privileged backgrounds have lot's of advantages - that's the point of privilege. You'll never design a system which completely eliminates this advantage, but we can strive to do our best. To suggest that the intention is unimportant is wrong. To suggest the actual effect is no different is also wrong.

[LondonMix]

I think some private schools are more socially inclusive than some state schools but in general I agree that on average that's not the case.

At JAGS for instance, 15.5% of the pupils are on significant bursaries (which have very low income caps as previously discussed) while at the Charter school in SE24, its 17%

http://www.eduexpress.co.uk/school/the-charter-school-london/

They help the mobility of the poorer children they admit but they also help to preserve the social status of their fee paying students.