Alleyns...doing their bit for the community?

[LondonMix]

The vast majority of people are neither rich nor poor Rahrah. Rich people are largely in fee paying schools and poor people are largely in inadequate state schools, while the majority of the population are largely in decent state schools. The problem is at the extremes both of which are a relative minority of the general population.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> 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. You'll never design

> a system which completely eliminates this, 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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Fair enough, but I suspect the social make up of those schools is very different to your average state school regardless of bursaries.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I would say that a tiny number of kids from very affluent (relatively) backgrounds are in fee paying schools, while the majority of the population are largely in decent state schools. A minority (though still far too many) are in inadequate state schools and of those a disproportionate number are from poor backgrounds.

But yes, we're not a million miles apart.

[LondonMix]

Definitely-- the middle is missing!

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Fair enough, but I suspect the social make up of

> those schools is very different to your average

> state school regardless of bursaries.

[rendelharris]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> 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%

That's a bit of a slanted comparison, taking a state school that's nearly in the heart of Dulwich and surrounded by some pretty prosperous areas. A fairer comparison might be with Southwark as a borough, where 36% of pupils get free school meals.

Also, when you say 15.5% of JAGS pupils are on "very significant" bursaries, how significant are they (I'm not being challenging, I'd just be interested to see the figures)? A 50% reduction in fees would certainly, in my eyes, be "very significant" - at JAGS a 50% bursary is available for those with an annual net income of less than ?40K (so approximately ?55K gross). If they're part of your comparison they don't really stack up alongside free school meals, which kick in below about ?15K.

[LondonMix]

I already said on average what the picture looks like.

My point was that its not universal and some state schools are relatively 'exclusive' and vice versa. Judgements on this ideally should be done school by school. There are some (very few) independent schools where the vast majority of their intake are poor / on full bursaries. There are some state schools that have no poor children at all.

[Earl Aelfheah]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Definitely-- the middle is missing!

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Fair enough, but I suspect the social make up

> of

> > those schools is very different to your average

> > state school regardless of bursaries.

I don't know this for sure (so could be wrong), but would guess that many of those on bursaries are probably quite middle class. I would also imagine that there are a lot of middle class parents who scrimp and save to send their kids to private schools, as well as the more affluent. My guess would be that generally, it's the the poorest who are underrepresented, rather than the middle. But again, I could be wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if many at those schools, under-estimate where the 'middle' lies.

[BrandNewGuy]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> 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.

I agree with most of your tin-hat post, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that being smarter than your colleagues is not necessarily very good for your career:

https://aeon.co/essays/you-don-t-have-to-be-stupid-to-work-here-but-it-helps

"Smart young things joining the workforce soon discover that, although they have been selected for their intelligence, they are not expected to use it. They will be assigned routine tasks that they will consider stupid. If they happen to make the mistake of actually using their intelligence, they will be met with pained groans from colleagues and polite warnings from their bosses. After a few years of experience, they will find that the people who get ahead are the stellar practitioners of corporate mindlessness."

[rendelharris]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> I already said on average what the picture looks

> like.

>

> My point was that its not universal and some state

> schools are relatively 'exclusive' and vice versa.

> Judgements on this ideally should be done school

> by school. There are some (very few) independent

> schools where the vast majority of their intake

> are poor / on full bursaries. There are some

> state schools that have no poor children at all.

I'm not doubting you, but for my own curiosity could you given example of an independent school where the "vast majority of the intake is poor/on full bursaries"? I can't find one and I can't honestly see how such a place would survive ? the Dulwich foundation, for example, is pretty well off but still has to charge the vast majority the (very high) full fees. I'd be very interested to know of such schools.

[LondonMix]

At JAGs and Alleyns a good portion (the majority if memory serves) of the bursaries aren't middle class but rather go to people with below median income levels for London. The amount of aid is capped based on your net income and a full bursary requires a net family income of less than 14k a year.

The exact figures change year by year depending on who applies but JAGs and Alleyns prioritise based on need so would rather give 10 full bursaries than 20 bursaries at 50 percent. Alleyn's is in the process of raising an additional endowment for 12 more full bursary places that is in addition to what they get from the Dulwich Estate.

However, Dulwich College from what I've seen historically doesn't do as good a job and attracting or providing bursaries to needy students.

Its impossible to generalise even about the local private schools. I have friends with daughters at JAGs and overall, I think they do a very good job at creating socially aware kids who are not elitist. I've heard the same about Alleyns but don't have any personal experience of kids who attend.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Hmmm. I think people kid themselves about the 'diversity' of these schools and about how 'socially aware' their pupils can possibly be when separated from the general population in order to be educated in an elite school. But there we go.

[LondonMix]

It was in an article I read earlier this year that cited a specific example. I'll see if I can find the name of the school but it was very small and its definitely the exception rather than the rule. Unless the original endowment was massive, running a standard size independent school with very high bursary levels isn't possible. If memory serves the school may have been a religious boys school.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I already said on average what the picture

> looks

> > like.

> >

> > My point was that its not universal and some

> state

> > schools are relatively 'exclusive' and vice

> versa.

> > Judgements on this ideally should be done

> school

> > by school. There are some (very few)

> independent

> > schools where the vast majority of their intake

> > are poor / on full bursaries. There are some

> > state schools that have no poor children at

> all.

>

> I'm not doubting you, but for my own curiosity

> could you given example of an independent school

> where the "vast majority of the intake is poor/on

> full bursaries"? I can't find one and I can't

> honestly see how such a place would survive ? the

> Dulwich foundation, for example, is pretty well

> off but still has to charge the vast majority the

> (very high) full fees. I'd be very interested to

> know of such schools.

[LondonMix]

Maybe but this girl's boyfriend goes to state school. She is definitely not a snob. Maybe this has more to do with her parents than the school but I think its equally wrong to assume all kids in independent schools are elitist toffs who don't know how to interact with 'ordinary' people.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Hmmm. I think people kid themselves about the

> 'diversity' of these schools and about how

> 'socially aware' their pupils can possibly be when

> separated from the general population in order to

> be educated in an elite school. But there we go.

[Earl Aelfheah]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> I think its equally wrong to assume all kids

> in independent schools are elitist toffs who don't

> know how to interact with 'ordinary' people.

Sure, I totally agree. I didn't mean to suggest that.

[LondonMix]

That wasn't really directed at you rah rah. Being American people can't read my class very easily so I hear pretty openly what both sides think of each other through different aspects of my life.

At work, I'm mostly surrounded by rich elites and through my volunteer work with Southark's youth justice system I come across many working class do gooders. I've heard shocking things from both sides! Interestingly, no one in my experience is that different from anyone else, certainly not as much as they think they are.

[Mick Mac]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > 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.

>

> I agree with most of your tin-hat post, but

> there's plenty of evidence to suggest that being

> smarter than your colleagues is not necessarily

> very good for your career:

> https://aeon.co/essays/you-don-t-have-to-be-stupid

> -to-work-here-but-it-helps

>

> "Smart young things joining the workforce soon

> discover that, although they have been selected

> for their intelligence, they are not expected to

> use it. They will be assigned routine tasks that

> they will consider stupid. If they happen to make

> the mistake of actually using their intelligence,

> they will be met with pained groans from

> colleagues and polite warnings from their bosses.

> After a few years of experience, they will find

> that the people who get ahead are the stellar

> practitioners of corporate mindlessness."

Indeed - certainly with the last line - a combination of intelligence and ability to get ahead without upsetting colleagues might be best.

I was really thinking of situations when the intelligence gap is not so enormous - but is gradually noticed over time. For example doctors - all of proven intelligence but over time some more than others - will progress to be senior / consultants (if progress is sought)

[LondonMix]

On the diversity point, looking for the name of that school for rendell I came across this.

https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/jun/16/diversity-private-schools-headteachers-leadership

I remembered that ethnic minorities are over represented in the independent school sector relative to the general population but didn't remember it was quite this high (29% of pupils vs 14% of the population).

Oakfield Prep gets a mention in the article discussing some of their pupils. There appear to be a number of factors including a greater willingness amongst minority parents who were state educated to pay for private education, even if its a struggle (immigrant ambition?).

Anyhow, it adds an additional dimension to the conversation about the social experience in the state vs. private sector, though probably not if you live in diverse SE London!

[rendelharris]

Interesting - though of course a lot of that high percentage of diversity is due to Middle Eastern and Far Eastern parents sending their offspring as boarders to the UK; in those regions the top public and private schools still have enormous cachet and are also seen as the best route into Oxbridge (and they have the money to pay the fees!).

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think people who send their kids to private school should stop trying to justify it in terms of diversity, inclusivity, social mobility etc. It comes across as post-rationalising, as though you're trying to justify a decision you feel guilt over (I'm not suggesting you should feel guilt, just that it comes across like that). Have the courage of your convictions. If you want to pay in order to give your kids an advantage, a competitive edge, just say it and move on. But you can't have it both ways. You can't send your child to an exclusive schools and then try to claim that actually it's no different than a state school and that you're somehow in favour of a level playing field.

[LondonMix]

Yes, I'm sure oligarch money plays its role both from the middle east and Africa.

[LondonMix]

What do you mean? I don't know anyone who says they've chosen private school because its more inclusive.

Some private schools are more diverse and inclusive than some state schools and while that might appeal, I've never heard anyone claim that was their primary motive. Its always about the education.

Anyhow, I think you can be in favour of a level playing field while still acknowledging that one doesn't exist and therefore doing what's best for your family. Just like picking the best state school you can within a system that has unequal quality of education.

Personally, I'm not rationalising anything as we don't pay for school fees (at least not yet). My only point was that generalisation about the social experience at independent schools should be judged school by school and relative to the the state alternative as the picture can be fairly mixed.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I think people who send their kids to private

> school should stop trying to justify it in terms

> of diversity, inclusivity, social mobility etc. It

> comes across as post-rationalising, as though

> you're trying to justify a decision you feel guilt

> over (I'm not suggesting you should feel guilt,

> just that it comes across like that). Have the

> courage of your convictions. If you want to pay in

> order to give your kids an advantage, a

> competitive edge, just say it and move on. But you

> can't have it both ways. You can't send your child

> to an exclusive schools and then try to claim that

> actually it's no different than a state school and

> that you're somehow in favour of a level playing

> field.

[Mick Mac]

?I have got parents at my school ? both black and white ? who struggle to pay the fees,? says Jane Stevens, principal at Oakfield Preparatory school in south-east London. ?I have a black single parent who I am aware has held down two jobs to pay for their child?s education. That?s not the sort of story that most people would attach to the independent sector.?

That's a big parental sacrifice.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Continually drawing parallels between the state and the private sector by saying "there are examples of inequality and injustice in both, so effectively they're the same", is misleading. The idea that until the state sector ensures 100% parity, is without flaws in terms of social accessibility, then you may as well support a considerably less inclusive system and it's all the same, is self deception.

If your concern is social justice and a level playing field, then you shouldn't promote the private system. This may not be your primary concern (it may providing your child with a competitive advantage), which is more than fair enough, but you can't have it both ways. I just wish the phoney rhetoric around inclusivity would be dropped. If you send your kid to private school it is not because you want to see a level playing field. I just do not buy it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I want to be clear that I'm not criticising those who send their kids to a private school. I think it can be quite honorable. I just don't like the doublespeak around social mobility.

[LondonMix]

I think decisions parents make around sending their kids to school, whether a good state school or a good private school are essentially from the same impulse and neither action is more or less moral or correct than the other. When others (not anyone here) suggests otherwise, it sounds both naive and ridiculously self-righteous.

However, I am not personally advocating for the existence of private education. I am advocating for a better admission system in the state sector though, which I've advocated for before on the forum. I think lotteries with large catchment areas (preferably inner and outer) are the best system if all schools aren't equally good. I think that will do a lot for social equity and mobility based on the research I've read.

I think independent schools both hinder (mostly) and help (partially) social mobility. If independent schools are to exist, I think there should be universal needs blind admission and significantly more bursaries so their overall socio-economic mix is more in line with the country as a whole. What the Sutton Trust has outlined makes sense: http://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/john-claughton-sees-independent-schools-as-part-of-the-solution-on-social-mobility/

When I discuss things, it needn't be pro or against, just facts about each. I think both the state and private sector need to be better at addressing the ways in which they both hinder social mobility. The UK has one of the worst records on social mobility in the developed world and addressing it requires looking at the entire education system not just private schools.

With all that said, while that is what I want to happen, I'll make my decisions as a parent based on what's best given my options in whatever system then exists. I'm not going to send my child to bad state school to prove a political point regarding my views on social mobility.