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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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. Those without any financial resources are left with the worst education unless special efforts are made to counteract this. As long as all schools aren't equally as good as one another, the only truly fair system is lotteries. Parents hate them of course.

Mick, why do you always have to be so aggressive and rude towards me?

Mick, I totally agree that the fee paying students are more a 'not for profit' activity conceptually rather than charitable work per se. This is much in the same way a cafe in a museum is not part of the charitable work but rather supports it. Without the fee paying students, the poorer students wouldn't have as good a school. The size of the endowment isn't large enough to educate enough students to provide the facilities the 3 Dulwich schools now have. Without the economies of scale provided by the fee paying students, the 'poor scholars' would be in a little school house still rather than a well resourced facility offering a wide range of sporting, arts and other enrichment facilities and activities. This is the logic that allows the entire school to function under 'legal' charitable status. Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM > > The Dulwich Estate is a charity for the poor - to > use layman's language. > > I'd say the schools are the "medium" whereby the > Estate provides its charitable work via assisting > in the bursaries. > > The schools themselves may provide limited > charitable service themselves and as such I view > them as not for profit - there is current pressure > on the schools to do more locally. > > The opening line of my previous post was to > differentiate between private schooling of the day > and the original Dulwich public school - being run > not for profit. Private schools are run for > private profit, Public schools (the Dulwich > schools) are not.

Rahrah and by this, I mean parents will buy into the best school system they can afford as part of making decisions about where they live. Of course other factors like amenities, house size and commute play their part but I don't know many people who would buy into an area with low performing schools if they could afford otherwise. Of course, not everyone can buy into the best state school districts but again, that's a function of personal means.

I think almost every middle class person, before deciding where to buy a family house, looks to see if the area has good schools as part of their decision making process. Based on this forum alone, its obvious parents spend an inordinate time worrying about this. Plenty of people move within or out of London once their children reach secondary school age to ensure they are near a good local school. Its not a criticism by the way.

I think Dulwich College does the least good job at providing full bursaries of the 3 Dulwich schools. I think Alleyns and JAGs both use their charitable endowment to provide education to families who most would consider working class or poor and that this was the basis on which the endowment was made and charitable status originally conferred. Like I said raharah, if someone is against private education, that the charitable endowment offers free to near free education to poorer families would be irrelevant. But that's a separate (though totally valid) point. However, I tend to find people's views on wealth and education quite inconsistent. I personally see no difference between people who buy a place in a good school catchment and those who more directly pay for education.

Why laugh? I disagree with your statement that the charity is more a non for profit rather than one that helps the poor Mick Mack. The charity is the Dulwich Estate and 100% of the net income derived from the original charitable endowment is used to fund bursaries based on income need. Therefore the charitable endowment is still fulling its original purpose. More to the point, the income qualification levels to access this fee assistance aren't at a middle class earnings level. I didn't mean to suggest you personally are against private schools (I have no idea). My point on that was that if someone is against private education in general, then they probably won't care about those details, which is also perfectly valid position to have.

That's not really the full story for the Dulwich schools. JAGs and Alleyn's in particular have a good amount of full to near full bursaries each year and the income limits to qualify are not that high. For instance to get a full bursary at JAGS, family net income (including benefits) has to be less than 13,500 a year. That is not remotely middle class. Its more common to have bursaries for 75% of the fees but even then, net income for the family has to be circa 25,000 with no material capital assets. Again, that household income (even taking into account the allowed adjustments) is below the London median. 65k is the point at which you qualify for zero assistance. rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I'd imagine the charitable status has been in > > place since then - it's not a charity for the > > poor, more of a not for profit, although the > > schools do have to provide bursaries etc to > those > > who cant pay fees, presumably therefore meeting > > their current day charitable obligations to a > > certain extent that way. > > Indeed, though it's questionable as to how much > they're helping the poor - most bursaries go to > pay part of the fees for those who can't afford > the full amount - for Eton financial help is > available for those with a household income of > less than ?80K, at Dulwich College it's ?60K. So > it's more of a helping hand for the middle classes > than fully funded places for the genuinely poor, > but it still counts as part justification of the > charitable status.

That's not true. The charitable trust (i.e. the endowment) was left to educate poor scholars. Alleyn's and the other Dulwich schools do that via the bursaries. And yes, there are children on full or near full bursaries at these schools and to qualify for these bursaries which are need based your income levels are no where near middle class. Around a 3rd of children at Alleyn's are on some type of income support and the school is in the process of raising an additional perpetual endowment for an additional 12 full bursaries to extend their charitable mission. If you are really interested, all the information about the bursaries and qualification levels and how much the school is administering can be found online. But all the money that the Dulwich Trust earns in rent etc from investing its original endowment is used to provide need based bursaries at all 3 schools it supports. If you are against private education as a point of principle you won't care but its wrong to suggest they aren't fulfilling their charitable purpose. Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if you go back far enough education was provided > by private tutor arrangements in the home of > wealthy families > > 17th century - Edward Alleyn Gods Gift ... > provided public schooling - this was seen as > charitable at the time as he gave up of his own > money. > > I'd imagine the charitable status has been in > place since then - it's not a charity for the > poor, more of a not for profit, although the > schools do have to provide bursaries etc to those > who cant pay fees, presumably therefore meeting > their current day charitable obligations to a > certain extent that way.