Is Alleyn's School a cuckoo?

[keane]

They didn't build over their playing areas.

[LondonMix]

So the school was originally developed with its current playing areas and has functioned that way for more than 100 years?

[SLad]

LondonMix, I have no idea about Heber but take a look at other local Victorian schools like Rosemead on the S Circular which, on its original site, has a small yard at the back and that's it, and Kingswood primary which has tiny yards. So too my old first school in Sheffield. I suspect it was something about the Victorian ideas on schooling...didn't need to bother with running around on fields because that's what the kids did all the rest of the time.

[bawdy-nan]

For an amazing insight into the world of Victorian schooling in the Dulwich area

Just for the PE:

?t=1m8s

[keane]

Yes london mix, that is correct. They haven't really got any space to expand as they are packed tightly into a residential road.

[LondonMix]

Interesting!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> -----

> > As I understand it bright children,

> statistically,

> > do better at state schools.

>

> This sounds a bit far fetched to me. Can you find

> any source for this?

>

> If there are good state secondary schools where

> you live (and you can get into one) then great,

> but that isn't always the case. I don't think we

> should be judgemental towards those who send

> children to private school, they're just trying to

> get the best education for their kids - even if

> you believe they are misguided.

I'm not sure that Independent schools do offer a better education than State schools. The evidence is at best mixed. Here is a good article on some of the evidence: http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/02/the-myth-of-private-school-performance/

...and of course you generally get a much narrower experience in terms of the breath of backgrounds, perspectives and values you encounter in your peers (although for some this may be seen as a good thing).

It would be good if private schools were made to measure and publish the same value added stats as state schools, so as to allow for a proper comparison, taking account of intake. Who knows it may help 'drive up standards' in private schools ;-)

[Polmoche]

> I'm not sure that Independent schools do offer a

> better education than State schools. The evidence

> is at best mixed. Here is a good article on some

> of the evidence:

> http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/02/the-

> myth-of-private-school-performance/

Of course, as with state schools, not all private schools are the same. Unfair to lump all private schools in with each other, as its unfair to lump all state schools together, some are outstanding, some are in special measures etc. Who in their right mind would pay 15K and up to send their child to a less than good private? Having toured every local school under the sun- privates, grammars and locals, all have their pros and cons.

Plus, with state schools, can we please do away with this crazy notion that there is actually a choice in the matter? There is only choice if you want to buy your way in via housing. We are in the crazy position that our closest schools are two very outstanding state schools which we would be more than happy to send our child to. BUT, though they are OUR closest, their last place offered by distance is extraordinarily tight. In once instance its 300 M. 300 M! And if you want to buy your way in via housing, a family house is 1 million PLUS.

I am with Bawdy Nan, less judgement please! And it's not just wealthy parents sending children to private school, I know quite a few families who are considering whether to prioritise private education- they are by no means wealthy, but think this is the right thing to do for their children.

[bawdy-nan]

Actually, I think the riposte to be "less judgemental" was directed at me rather than by me (I think I am a little bit judgemental!)

And thanks, Polemache, those were the reports upon which I'd based by assertions

[????]

Was reading Lola Okolosie's typical Guardian piece of Class Warfare* (*middle class warriors only obvioulsy) and this comment in the comments sums up a lot of my views

"The Guardian is constantly bashing private schools - and state grammar schools - despite the fact it is a hypocritical, illiberal, and illogical position for them to take.

Hypocritical because so many of their senior figures went to private schools or sent their children to them - including Toynbee and Rusbridger, who did both. Incidentally, CP Scott, who founded the Guardian, was instrumental in founding one of the country's consistently top-performing private schools, Withington Girls', in Manchester.

Illiberal, because in a free society people should be able to choose what they spend their money on - not to mention that many self-made or aspirational people from working class and migrant backgrounds see private schools as a way of shoring up their children's security after a lifetime of hard work.

Illogical, because high house prices in areas with 'outstanding' state schools result in de facto selection by wealth. In Chorlton, Manchester - where the Guardian historially sells well - two bedroom terraces routinely fetch ?250,000+ in catchment areas for the most fashionable state PRIMARY schools - in a city where the median household income is about ?22,500."

[LondonMix]

The evidence I have seen suggests that private schools are at a minimum better at preparing students to do well on their A-level exams (that of course is a very narrow definition of education).

The evidence comes from the fact that on average, once at university, a state school student with the exact same A-level results as a privately educated student, will outperform the privately educated student.

This suggests, that the inherent intelligence a state student needs to have to achieve a certain set of results is higher than someone in private education. Once the quality of teaching both students receive is the same at university, the advantage of private tuition disappears and the more intelligent student does better.

On average, your child will therefore get better A-level exam results if privately educated. Of course, this won?t hold true at every state school / private school, its just an average.

For me the most polemical part of this research is that it undermines social mobility. Someone privately educated will do better than someone of equal intelligence in the state sector, and that advantage will allow them to go to better university and then get a higher paying job and then the cycle of social advantage continues.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Polmoche Wrote:

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

> Of course, as with state schools, not all private

> schools are the same. Unfair to lump all private

> schools in with each other, as its unfair to lump

> all state schools together, some are outstanding,

> some are in special measures etc.

Clearly this is true, but as part of an inevitably imperfect discussion about the relative merits of one sector over another, it is necessary and appropriate to talk generally.

> Who in their right mind would pay 15K and up to send their

> child to a less than good private?

Plenty do. Which is interesting in itself, as it implies that academic performance is not always the primary factor in choosing private education.

> Having toured every local school under the sun- privates,

> grammars and locals, all have their pros and cons.

Of course, but for the sake of a debate you have to talk in generalities, whilst being aware that this is what you are doing and there is always unspoken nuance.

> Plus, with state schools, can we please do away

> with this crazy notion that there is actually a

> choice in the matter?

Completely agree with this. I don't understand why we persist with the charade of choice. Everyone should be offered a place at their nearest school in my opinion.

> There is only choice if you want to buy your way in via housing. We are in the

> crazy position that our closest schools are two

> very outstanding state schools which we would be

> more than happy to send our child to. BUT, though

> they are OUR closest, their last place offered by

> distance is extraordinarily tight. In once

> instance its 300 M. 300 M! And if you want to buy

> your way in via housing, a family house is 1

> million PLUS.

I think the 'moving to be in a catchment' scenario is probably over stated, although I don't doubt it happens. Either way it's certainly contained to a minority who are both willing and able to do so. But if you think private education is a good idea, then moving to be near a good state school must be also, no? It's much the same thing.

> I am with Bawdy Nan, less judgement please! And

> it's not just wealthy parents sending children to

> private school, I know quite a few families who

> are considering whether to prioritise private

> education- they are by no means wealthy, but think

> this is the right thing to do for their children.

I agree that we shouldn't judge parents for doing the best for their children. I've said it several times. I would say however, that those who think that because affording the fees of a top private school is uncomfortable, they are not wealthy - probably underestimate their position, relative to the majority. Try this, it's usually an eye opener: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

[LondonMix]

I agree, that anyone who can even contemplate private school fees is wealthy. Only 10% of the working population are on the 40% and 45% tax rates. The vast majority don't make anywhere near the money to contemplate it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> The evidence I have seen suggests that private

> schools are at a minimum better at preparing

> students to do well on their A-level exams (that

> of course is a very narrow definition of

> education).

>

> The evidence comes from the fact that on average,

> once at university, a state school student with

> the exact same A-level results as a privately

> educated student, will outperform the privately

> educated student.

> This suggests, that the inherent intelligence a

> state student needs to have to achieve a certain

> set of results is higher than someone in private

> education. Once the quality of teaching both

> students receive is the same at university, the

> advantage of private tuition disappears and the

> more intelligent student does better.

That is one possibility. The other is that something about being at a state school better prepares you for the experience of going to university. I'm not sure it's possible to be sure of what is going on.

A much better measure of school performance is to look at progress over the course of schooling (so taking account of the difference in terms of intake). Unfortunately, whilst state schools have to record Value Added measures, private schools do not. The little research that there has been, suggests that *perhaps* state schools do better. It's pretty inconclusive either way however.

[Polmoche]

I thought we were talking about Alleyns, hence why I said it was unfair to lump it in with the middling privates. I liked Alleyns when I toured it, but I was also very impressed with Haberdashers and I thought the Deptford Green deputy head was warm, articulate and dynamic.

As for only the wealthy being the only ones who can contemplate privates, actually, this is where bursaries come in. I know 3 children on substantial bursaries at Jags (90%), St. Dunstans (70%) and King's College School (not sure percentage). As bursaries are means tested I assure you none of these families would even be considered even middle class. It also all depends on what your priorities are - I would venture you are not factoring in cultures where the extended family sometimes help pay. People often ask where do people on benefits get the money to buy X, Y & Z (usually fags and booze), well I know a mother on benefits and living in council accommodation, who spent every spare penny on tuition at ?36 an hour!

Finally, the link to IFS.org.uk is really unnecessary and very patronising.

[LondonMix]

That's very fair point. I meant those contemplating it without financial aid!

[????]

Only the privileged lefty middle-classes don't realise how many families from working class and minorities struggle and how many more aspire to put their kids into private education. They preach on from their pleasant expensive neighbourhoods with decent performing state schools and expect the working class to know their place.

[Earl Aelfheah]

come on quids, no one is suggesting that there are no children from less privileged backgrounds at private schools, but clearly they are heavily weighted towards those with more affluent parents. To suggest that somehow it's the private schools which are working class and state schools which are populated by the children of the middle classes is a total inversion of reality.

[Townleygreen]

Well said, quids!!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Polmoche Wrote:

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

> I thought we were talking about Alleyns, hence why

> I said it was unfair to lump it in with the

> middling privates. I liked Alleyns when I toured

> it, but I was also very impressed with

> Haberdashers and I thought the Deptford Green

> deputy head was warm, articulate and dynamic.

>

> As for only the wealthy being the only ones who

> can contemplate privates, actually, this is where

> bursaries come in. I know 3 children on

> substantial bursaries at Jags (90%), St. Dunstans

> (70%) and King's College School (not sure

> percentage). As bursaries are means tested I

> assure you none of these families would even be

> considered even middle class. It also all depends

> on what your priorities are - I would venture you

> are not factoring in cultures where the extended

> family sometimes help pay. People often ask where

> do people on benefits get the money to buy X, Y &

> Z (usually fags and booze), well I know a mother

> on benefits and living in council accommodation,

> who spent every spare penny on tuition at ?36 an

> hour!

>

> Finally, the link to IFS.org.uk is really

> unnecessary and very patronising.

I meant those paying full fees. Clearly there are small number of children with bursaries, but they are in the minority.

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[edhistory]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> So the school was originally developed with its

> current playing areas and has functioned that way

> for more than 100 years?

Alleyn's School occupied East Dulwich in October 1887.

[civilservant]

edhistory, I think Londonmix was talking about Heber.

interesting to see so much ignorance about the problems faced by schools like Heber - which were also built to educate the children of the poor, but haven't had the benefit of the kind of benign philanthrophy that funded the charitable endowments that Alleyn's can call on. I am sure that Edward Alleyn would be spinning in his grave if he could see the way that his original intentions have evolved.

Anyway, if as Keane says, Heber have been asking in vain to share Alleyn's facilities, that is a real shame and should be more widely known. I would certainly back a campaign for more and better sharing.

[*Bob*]

???? Wrote:

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

> They preach

> on from their pleasant expensive neighbourhoods

> with decent performing state schools

Where are all of these again? For the record.

[Dadadada]

And to answer the original post, no Alleyn's isn't a cuckoo, it's more a sort of elephant in the room.